Hallam-Baker, Phillip [pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com] wrote:
Please define "extensibility" in the scope of SPF.
The ability to add directives.
...without bumping the version number, you're implying, I guess. I don't think
we want that. Even XML doesn't allow tags that are not defined in the
specified DTD/schema.
Allowing mechanisms that are not clearly defined for specific versions of SPF
is harmful, as it implies potentially undefined semantics. As I wrote in
another message[1] of mine, making the validity of an SPF record depend on the
*parser* is a very bad thing to do.
In particular the ability to add directives of the type:
+domainkeys:_params accredit=class3.verisign.com
The domainkeys authentication directive will be required if yahoo
domainkeys is going to play within the spf framework.
I wouldn't consider SPF a framework. However, even if a "domainkeys" mechanism
might be supported in a specific(!) version of SPF (maybe even v1), please
don't allow undefined mechanisms in specific versions of SPF. See above.
[1] Message-ID: <EHEOIEJMBFBKCKMPHFJKIEKMFAAA(_dot_)lists(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net>
-------
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