On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 08:46, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
Ack. I am convinced that unknown is the Right Thing to do.
What about MAY vs MUST ?
current:
If a loop is detected, or if more than 20 subqueries are triggered,
an SPF client MAY abort the lookup and return the result "unknown".
proposed:
If a loop is detected, or if more than 20 subqueries are triggered,
an SPF client MUST abort the lookup and return the result "unknown".
I suggested a couple of days ago that processing of an include:
mechanism could simply be ignored if processing of that record was
already in progress (looping). If I then added to that the requirement
that, as suggested by Alex, if more than 20 subqueries are triggered,
an SPF client MUST abort the lookup and return the result "unknown", can
anyone think of a case where this would return the *wrong* result?
This would enable two organisations to include: each other's SPF records
harmlessly, whilst handling real problems with a error response.
Paul.
--
Paul Howarth <paul(_at_)city-fan(_dot_)org>