wayne 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.
Unknown mechanisms are NOT syntax errors; this is quite clearly codified
in the draft and on the websites.
If you are proposing that we change this established behaviour please
say so clearly.
Wechsler
--
This message protected by the SPF protocol - adopt it now!
Details: http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.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_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡