Peter Karsai wrote:
I think it is quite clear that this is a syntax error, which causes
PermError.
Maybe for the "redirect=" modifier. But I would not be so intolerant
and return "PermError" if there are more than one "exp=" modifiers.
I would ignore any error that may happen when processing the "exp="
modifier.
I tend to see this problem from the developer's viewpoint. I admit
that the last version of the SPF proposal I reviewed in depth was
draft-ietf-marid-protocol-00 which clearly specified "exp" as global
and singular with the sole purpose of providing human-readable
explanation for the upstream and that I why I thought that SPF
implementations must not accept multiple "exp" modifiers.
It still remains a question however what SPF implementations should do
with multiple "exp" modifiers - use the first one found left to right
or evaluate all and concatenate the results?
I belong to the school which says that, in the case of multiple "exp="
modifiers, no PermError should be issued, but that the ambiquity of both
"exp=" modifiers means they must both be created as if absent. Because this
is not the sort of syntax error that warrants a permanent failure. You can
remove both from scope, without detracting from the "essential nature" of
the SPF record.
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx