spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email"

2004-01-23 05:53:13
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:

: > | v=spf1 mx -all
: > |
: > |   becomes
: > |
: > | v=spf2 mx newfeature:foo -all

: In both cases, chances are my client has no way of knowing how to process
: the v2 record, thus I have to ignore the entire record.  Otherwise, I may
: misinterpret "newfeature" and make a wrong decision.

Actually, if the record remains version "spf1", then the behavior with
regard to "newfeature" is well-defined in the SPF spec:  result becomes
"unknown". This is because once you reach that point, you don't know how to
handle that method, and it's plausible that the new method does indeed apply
to the connection in question (whereas proceeding to the -all could
improperly deny the mail).

-- 
-- Todd Vierling <tv(_at_)duh(_dot_)org> <tv(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com>

-------
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-02.9.4.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?¡