Wechsler [wechsler(_at_)phase(_dot_)org] wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
We could support undefined syntax, but we shouldn't try to
support undefined semantics, e.g. by guessing it.
How on earth can a parser support undefined syntax?
First, I certainly didn't say we *should*, I just said we *could*.
Second: /\S+/ supports unknown non-whitespace words (i.e. it can parse them),
but we couldn't ever possibly know the meaning of unknown non-whitespace words.
Some people here seem to think it would be a good idea to allow unknown
mechanisms to just be skipped when interpreting SPF records, or at least be
ignored if the SPF tester finds a clear result before reaching the unknown
mechanism. I don't think so.
-------
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