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".
Is this really that much of an issue that we need to bother? As you
mentioned, look how far POP made it.. SPF1 isn't even final yet, and as
such I can't see how there are any problems. Once its locked down that
should be it.
With libspf, if a parsing error occurs, currently the entire parse is
tossed in the crapper and UNKNOWN is returned although I've been meaning
to bring up my desire to have this changed to ERROR or with the recent
re-addition of SOFTFAIL, using that instead.
Also in debate is perhaps just ignoring a mechanism that is not
understood and continuing provided that the string in question contains
a v=spfx and xall, as opposed to ceasing a parse and returning UNKNOWN.
Thoughts anyone?
Cheers,
James
--
James Couzens,
Programmer
Current projects:
http://libspf.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
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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part