Should we allow?
ip4:Watkins-home.com.
I vote no. To both.
Make wizards easy to find.
Have an email responder that will do a live test.
Note: In the spec the "a" is used in examples before it is explained!
In:
http://spf.pobox.com/draft-ietf-marid-protocol-00.txt
4.3 and 4.6 gives the syntax. But "a" is used in section 2.1.
Some people may think they know how the stuff works before they get to
section 4.6. I was creating my first spf record while reading an may have
made a similar mistake. But after reading 4.3 and/or 4.6 I would have
corrected the error(s).
Guy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com] On Behalf Of Meng
Weng Wong
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 9:45 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC
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