spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

proposed mechanism "exec"

2003-11-05 20:40:50
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 09:05:07PM -0500, Philip Gladstone wrote:
| localpart:rlp mechanism. I'd like to redefine 'include' so that it 
| behaves the same way as localpart:rlp. Currently, you can't emulate 
| localpart:rlp with    include:%{ur}.lp._spf.whatever    as you can't 
| return a deny from an include. Is there a good reaon for this?
| 

so we need an "exec" in additon to "include".  localpart right now acts
as "exec".  include is keep-searching-for-allow, exec will completely
replace the existing directive set.

| Fixing this in include would also help out another issue. I have a bunch 
| of email domains and I'd like to have a single record that controls all 
| of them. Naively you might think that  having each domain say   "v=sfp1 
| include:spf-control.gladstonefamily.net default=unknown" and then fiddle 
| with the record at spf-control.gladstonefamily.net, but this doesn't 
| work as you can never get a deny/softdeny out of this.
| 
| Also, is there a reason that I have to specify the default= rather than 
| just have default=unknown as the default.

if we don't require a default, i fear implementations will assume deny
rather than unknown.

-------
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?¡


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>