spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Summary: Current state of SPF

2004-01-29 15:02:32
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 04:46:08PM -0500, Mark Shewmaker wrote:

After the discussion on this, a light's gone on in my head:  I just now
understand, (though even though I had been told this earlier), that
there would be a difference between:

  v=spf1 +a/24 +mx +pgp -all        #  "pgp" as a nonstandard mechanism

  and

  v=spf1 +a/24 +mx +pgp= -all       #  "pgp" as a nonstandard modifier

Is this allowed?

"SPF-record  = version *( 1*SP declaration ) *( 1*SP modifier )"
seems to indicate modifiers need to follow after declarations.

If it is legal, wouldn't
"SPF-record  = version *( 1*SP ( declaration | modifier ) )"
be more appropriate?

And while I'm on the subject (nitpicking, perhaps):

"SPF-record  = version *( 1*SP declaration ) *( 1*SP modifier )"

allows a record "v=spf1" but further in the draft is the following:
"Only records that start with "v=spf1"<SP> are relevant."

Does this mean "v=spf1" is legal but irrelevant?

cheers,
Alex
-- 
begin  sig
http://www.googlism.com/index.htm?ism=alex+van+den+bogaerdt&type=1
This message was produced without any <iframe tags

-------
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?¡