On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:57:44AM -0500, Mark Shewmaker wrote:
| 2. (Ducking) The spf1 standard could state that mechanisms beginning
| with "ignore_me_" are to be ignored, and not cause spf processing to
| abort.
|
| That would mean that I could publish a record with
| "ignore_me_coolfeature:yes ignore_me_somethingelse=1234" in an spf1
| record, not break compatibility with spec'd clients, and folks who
| were interested in one or the other or both could set their test
| clients to enable the functionality of one or the other or both.
|
| (You'd probably want something shorter than "ignore_me". Maybe
| "local_", but I'd be afraid of potential spec fragmentation with
| vendors all adding in additional "local" functionality.)
How about "v=spf1+" meaning "experimental additions" to version 1, and
that such a record can co-exist with "v=spf1" so you can publish a normal
specification at the same time?
@ IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:10.0.0.0/8 -all"
@ IN TXT "v=spf1+ foo:bar ip4:10.0.0.0/8 ?all"
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
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?¡