Roy> Actually, on reflection, what SPF should probably say is
Roy> something more like the following:
Just to clarify:
I like my algorithm slightly more than Meng's, but I'm now wedded to it.
But neither should appear as a normative part of the spec. The para I
wrote below is unambiguous in the case of conformant messages (I think
-- if not it should be fixed to be so). Both Meng's and my algorithm
get into the dangerous and unnecessary territory of trying to define
the semantics of non-conformant messages.
A sample algorithm, in an informative appendix, is certainly useful,
but the actual standard shoudn't be worded in those terms.
Does that seem reasonable?
Roy> The header sender is defined as follows: in the case of a
Roy> message that has not been resent (as evidenced by the lack of
Roy> appropriate headers), the header sender is taken to be the
Roy> value of the Sender header, if present, otherwise the value
Roy> of the From header. Where a message has been resent (as
Roy> evidenced by the presence of appropriate headers), the header
Roy> sender is taken to be the value of the Resent-Sender header
Roy> (if present) in the first block, otherwise the value of the
Roy> Resent-From header in the first block. If the message is not
Roy> conformant to the syntax of RFC 2822, the behaviour is
Roy> undefined. A sample implementation is defined in Apendix
Roy> Foo.
-------
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?¡