spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Spec draft

2003-11-17 11:48:39
A number of comments:

* I think that there ought to be a mechanism extension mechanism. For example, a mechanism of the form 'x-whatever' would be processed if known, otherwise it is ignored. Otherwise, you have to use 'include:whateverrecord' and 'whateverrecord IN TXT "x-whatever"' to have the same effect.

*   In 7.1, %u and %l seem to be the same. I think this is wrong

* In 7.1 I see no reason to prevent the expansion of h,s,t in domain lookups. Why not unify the explanation context and domain context entirely?

* In 7.1, If you don't want to split on anything, then 'r' and the '*DIGIT' also don't do anything, so the problem mentioned doesn't arise.

* In 7.1 I would reorder the '*DIGIT' and the 'r' to make it clear that the *DIGIT operation happens *after* the 'r' operation.

* In 7.1 there ought to be a note about IPv6 addresses and the 'r' operator. This is special cased to use the single digit dot form of the address rather than the textual form of the address (the current version of Mail::SPF::Query doesn't do this, but it ought to!)

*   In section 5, many of the example SPF records are old-style

Philip

-------
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-02.6.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>