In <20031028161901(_dot_)GJ17304(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> Meng Weng
Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> writes:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 10:16:00AM -0600, wayne wrote:
|
| How does an SPF client know the difference between an "unofficial
| directive" and a misspelled "official directive"? Maybe all
| "unoffical directives" should begin with "x-" a la mail headers?
misspelled official directives are ignored. publishers are expected to
use a validation tool.
I thought that syntax errors cause the SPF processing to be aborted
and to return "unknown". Is there something that overrides your
message of <20031025012146(_dot_)GM17304(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> that
says:
If a modifier is defined more than once, this constitutes a syntax
error; an SPF client MUST abort processing and return "unknown". For
example, "scope=envelope scope=header-from" is an error.
Ok, so you talk about a modifier used multiple times rather than all
syntax errors, but this is the closest I've seen to a defintion of
what to do with a syntax error.
As a related issue, I think that if multiple TXT records are found,
only one should be used and that one should be the one with the
highest SPF version that the client supports. This would let people
support newer versions of the SPF standard while letting older clients
function as well as they can. I don't see much good in concatenating
TXT records.
-wayne
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡