spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: When should the proccessing of the SPF record end?

2004-03-23 00:57:22
--Meng Weng Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 07:55:43PM -0600, wayne wrote:
|
| 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.
|

I agree it's a bad idea, but as long as it's only a bad idea for the
sloppy publishers, it doesn't hurt the rest of us.  I think.


There is a "theme" or "philosophy" that starts with early HTTP specs, perhaps even earlier, that goes something like, "Be as strict as possible in what your device does, but be as permissive as you can when other devices are not compliant."

It sounds great as an idea, but now I am starting to think that maybe "be permissive" is what got us where we are today with email standards that are often abused and rarely checked (like RFC 2821 HELO being a fqdn).

Being "permissive" is also one way to get better compatibility, when we come up with a new widget that works exactly like the old one only with a new character in it or something. If you want "extensible" it's probably safer to decide up front what directions it might be extended in -- permissive might at first look like extensible but it's not a predictable way to get there.

Anyway... I'm not saying we should necessarily be strict, but I wanted to provide a quick counterpoint to "allowing others to be sloppy doesn't hurt the rest of us"...


--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>