In <20040323014116(_dot_)GS27090(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> Meng Weng
Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> writes:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:39:00PM +0100, Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET
SysOp) (Zurich - CH) wrote:
| In spf-draft-20040209.txt in the section 3.2 it says:
|
I have updated section 3.2 to contain:
+ A meaningful modifer such as "exp" may appear to the
+ right of a terminal mechanism such as "all". SPF parsers
+ may therefore choose to extract all the modifiers from a
+ record before interpreting mechanisms. Alternatively,
+ they may continue to parse a record in search of a
+ meaningful modifier even after mechanism evaluation has
+ completed.
I'm a little bit bothered by the new paragraph because it tries to
micromanage clients in too much detail. Is there a better way to say:
you have to respect an exp modifier even if it appears after "all"?
IMHO, I think that the entire SPF record MUST be checked for syntax
errors. When dealing with important policies that involve the
rejection of email, allowing ambiguity and sloppiness in the
specification is A Bad Idea.
-wayne