In
<Pine(_dot_)NEB(_dot_)4(_dot_)58(_dot_)0401291245360(_dot_)14011(_at_)server(_dot_)duh(_dot_)org>
<tv+spf(_at_)duh(_dot_)org> writes:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, wayne wrote:
: Y> http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf.02.9.5.txt
:
: I think "encounters" means "received an SPF record", rather than "a
: token in the SPF record when parsing left to right."
My interpretation was the latter meaning (token-based); otherwise there
would be no point to allowing extensions. SPF is an ordered-rule based
system, so tokens are typically taken as individual entities one at a time.
I guess I come from a compiled language background and am thinking
ahead to the idea of having an SPF DNS record with syntax checking at
the zone load time.
If the spec is token based, then you really can't validate past an
exists:%{ir}._spf.%{d} because you can't know if that pseudo-dnsbl
will always return true.
-wayne
-------
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_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡