Meng Weng Wong wrote:
What kind of version strings do you guys want to see? How do we make
it clear that a client at a certain version should or should not
interpret records of a certain version?
I think that because the version number represents the version of the
protocol syntax and what extensions/operators it uses, I don't believe
we need major.minor version numbers, as some have suggested. There
shouldn't be that many versions of the protocol itself over time. Look
how far POP made it (3).
Phil Howard wrote:
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"
I think this syntax is perfect. As long as the spec states that the
version must come between the "v=" and whitespace, we shouldn't have any
problems. The + modifier to the end to indicate experimental extensions
is adequate and concise. The only alternative to "+" I could think of
would perhaps be "x" or ".x".
---
Dustin D. Trammell
Vulnerability Remediation Alchemist
Citadel Security Software, Inc.
-------
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
Wiki:
http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/HomePage
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)½§Åv¼ð¦¾Øß´ë ù1Ií-»Fqx(_dot_)com