wayne [wayne(_at_)midwestcs(_dot_)com] wrote:
I think that checking things token by token is just plain confusing.
Again, I think implementations of SPF MUST check for all syntax errors
including unknown mechanisms. It MAY check for things like missing
records in include:, recursion depth limits, etc.
I fully agree with that.
Making the validity of an SPF record depend on the *parser* is a very bad thing
to do. No undefined mechanisms should be allowed in "v=spf1" records, i.e. no
extensibility in *specific* versions of SPF! This makes the effect to
published SPF records predictable.
Further, invalid records should be treated the same (be it "unknown", "error",
or whatever) in *all* cases, i.e. regardless of whether some mechanism(s)
preceding the error could match. This makes errors that are due to
misconfigurations easily reproducible.
-------
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-02.9.5.txt
Wiki: http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)���v¼����ߴ� �1I�-�Fqx(_dot_)com