No. If people refuse to RTFM, is it our task to accomodate? Should we
now just have a general mechanism 'x' and guess what was meant by 'x'
based on what follows?
This is of the same order as people who are unable to maintain a dns
server and still run their own dns server: their problem not ours.
There'll always be people who think they can spare a few bucks by doing
things themselves, not hindered by the fact that they have absolutely no
idea what they are doing.
If anything, there should be a validating service, akin to
http://validator.w3.org/. I'll write one today.
Koen
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 09:44:30PM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
So here we have
20040907-21:41:31 mengwong(_at_)dumbo:~% dnstxt bluebottle.com
v=spf2.0/pra a:209.223.237.194 a:209.223.237.195 mx -all
Setting aside the spf2 vs spf1 thing for now, I'm somewhat
dismayed to see people doing a:1.2.3.4 when the correct
syntax is ip4:1.2.3.4.
Should we change the spec to say that if the argument to an
"a" mechanism is obviously an IP address, we interpret it as
ip4 / ip6?
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta features
SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/