In <000701c46326$bc0185e0$01030101(_at_)pamho(_dot_)net> "Roger Moser"
<roger_moser_spf(_at_)greenmail(_dot_)ch> writes:
Mark Lentczner wrote:
Several alternative syntaxes have been proposed that would make such a
thing simpler, and fit in only one record. Indeed, we thought of some
too. We rejected them because, for better or worse, SPF is actually
deployed and we are wary of changes to the syntax that will break
existing parsers. Success has its downsides!
Using modifiers does not change the syntax and will not break existing
parsers.
Nothing in the current SPF draft says that modifiers can be position
dependant, and there are a couple of references to how they should be
placed at the end. (e.g., the are position independant.)
Both the M:S:Q and libspf2 (aka libspf-alt) implemenations throw all
the modifiers into a seperate bin and only look for them when needed.
Allowing position dependant modifiers would require some changes.
Also, Hector Santos mentioned on the MARID list that his software
(which is out in the field) is based off an earlier SPF draft that
*required* modifiers to be at the end.
So, using position dependant modifiers is not a problem-free option.
-wayne