On Oct 14, 2004, at 8:41 AM, guy wrote:
I don't like supporting unrecognized mechanisms. This will allow
typos and
other error to be ignored. I am not the first to say this. But if
someone
uses "ipv4", or "prt", these will be ignored. I think an error should
be
returned.
Please read the draft carefully. They are not ignored if processing
proceeds as far as trying to interpret them. If preceding directives
match, the unrecognized mechanism is never evaluated, and so yes it is
ignored. If the preceding directives all don't match, then the
processing the unrecognized mechanism fails with PermError.
Now, it has been proposed that it would better return PermError at the
start of processing if any mechanism is unrecognized. I actually agree
with this logic. However, the draft documents the SPF v1 common
understanding, and the above logic has been in SPF drafts for ages.
When we move forward with a new version of SPF, I'm all for changing
the language to be more strict.
- Mark