In <4173B8DD(_dot_)1EC1(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:
wayne wrote:
When you change the fundemental meaning of "fail" and
change the circumstances inwhich it is created, you have a
major change.
It's what Roger (IIRC) said, SPF stands for "sender policy",
not "receiver". IMHO an obvious bug which has to be fixed.
Only one FAIL is better, clearer, and shorter => KISS.
Mark has argued strongly that it the new concept of what "fail" is is
not a bug, it is a very deliberate feature.
Oh good. So we both agree on the last spec for SPF-classic?
Sure, that was draft-mengwong-spf-00, it expired about 18 days
ago. The actual v=spf1 draft is draft-lentczner-spf-00. That
is the only existing draft without major problems in the ABNF,
It appears that you believe that only the IETF can create a standard.
Bunk. We have had a de-facto standard for SPF for a very long time.
Long before the MARID and quite possibly, long after MARID.
The IETF is making itself irrelevant. While the IETF may be useful,
it is not as important to us as spf.pobox.com. spf-draft-200406 is
what is on spf.pobox.com, I really don't much care what's on the IETF
website.
(minus one "macro-with-sp" issue in explanations found by you).
Actually, it was found by Roger, who also pointed out that the ABNF
for the percent escapes is bogus. I did find that were conflicting
definitions for the term "modifier".
In other words please don't touch it. Whatever ( "." *ALPHA )
in your domain-spec is supposed to do, it's no "l-d-h-string"
normally found in a domain syntax (ldh = letter digit hyphen).
You appear to be confusing domain names with host names. You fail to
understand that even RFCs include slash as a recommended domain name.
Worse, you seem to be completely missing the fact that even Mark's
ABNF for the domain-spec allows for many things other than
l-d-h-string. I've talked with Mark (and Meng) about this stuff in
the past, I am very confident that they don't have the same confusions
you do.
And what Mark did with the slash was the result of careful
considerations with an expert about parsing ambiguities, you
can't simply remove it.
Oh bunk. I didn't remove it, I changed it to soemthing better.
It is quite correct that the ABNF in spf-draft-200406 is ambiguious,
but it doesn't take a fricking "expert" to know how to write regular
expressions.
-wayne