Is there a reason to use
"v=spf1 ...
rather than
"spf=1 ...
or
"spf=1.0 ...
?
Just wondering why to use the "v= to begin the record rather than allowing
the initial part of the record to almost be a record type and version
control at the same time.
Marc
-----Original Message-----
From: Meng Weng Wong
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Sent: 10/28/2003 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] SPF syntax errors
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 10:47:48AM -0600, wayne wrote:
| In <20031028161901(_dot_)GJ17304(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> Meng Weng
Wong
<mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> writes:
| >
| > 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:
Syntax errors appear to SPF clients as unknown extensions. Unknown
extensions are ignored.
| 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.
The above paragraph assumes that there will only be one record matching
"v=spf1...". Here is what the latest spec says.
If multiple "v=spf1" responses are returned, the directives following
"v=spf1" are concatenated in the order they are received. DNS
ordering is not guaranteed. If directive evaluation order is
important, SPF publishers MUST list mechanisms in a single TXT
record. In any case, SPF publishers SHOULD keep to a single TXT
record; multiple responses are NOT RECOMMENDED.
If a modifier is defined more than once, this constitutes a syntax
error. Upon syntax error, an SPF client MUST abort processing and
return "unknown". For example, "scope=envelope scope=header-from" is
an error.
TXT responses which do not start with "v=spf1" are ignored.
-------
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?¡
-------
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?¡