In <20031028185623(_dot_)GQ17304(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> Meng Weng
Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> writes:
perhaps we need to clarify what we mean by syntax errors. i was
following your apparent definition of "syntax error" above.
if somebody mistypes "mx" as "xm", that is treated as an unknown
extension and ignored.
if somebody provides two default directives, that is a syntax error, and
the result is immediately "unknown".
This may well be a philisophical thing that we will just have to agree
to disagree on, but I really don't like silently ignoring unknown
extentions. But then, I also prefer strongly typed languages and
curse every time I mistype a variable name in a bash script and have
to track it down.
While I don't think SPF clients need to do super-strict error
checking, SPF validators are good for that, I do think that errors
such as unknown options should not be allowed. I especially don't
like how some types of errors, such as two scope= options would
trigger an error, but a scop= option wouldn't. Should an error such
as "ip4:1.2.3.$/28" be ignored? What about "ipv4:1.2.3.4/28" or
"ip4:1.2.3.4 /28"?
Again, if arbitrary extentions are to be allowed, I recommend
something like the "x-" prefix used in email headers. Is "x-report"
really that much worse than just plain "report"?
-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?¡