wayne wrote:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.devel/392
Okay, that's a list I don't read, and I did't even know that
gmane has it (= I only added HELP and DEPLOY to gmane after
finding DISCUSS and the now long dead ANNOUNCE).
If that would be a problem Robert's idea %! could solve it.
I think you mean Roger Moser, but maybe not.
You're right, sorry to Roger (whenever I wrote "Robert" in the
last days I always meant Roger). His "%!" fixes it, near lines
1532+1533:
- A literal "%" is expressed by "%%".
- "%_" expands to a single " " space.
+ A literal "%" is expressed by "%%".
+ "%!" expands to a single "/" slash.
+ "%_" expands to a single " " space.
---
1536/2302:
- / "%%" / "%_" / "%-"
+ / "%%" / "%_" / "%-" / "%!"
---
That should solve the problem in Mark's draft. Now anybody can
use %, /, and space in a domain-spec as he sees fit, using the
%%, %!, and %_ notation. And all other "visible char.s" work
directly: macro-literal = %x21-24 / %x26-2E / %x30-7E
I never said, as you claim, that I "don't want input from
others who are not currently implementing SPF".
That's how I interpreted your remark, and I still interpret it
so. Now we have the nice situation, where James quotes "6.2",
you quote "7.2", I also quote "7.2", and the interested reader
who asked a question about "processing limits" is free to guess
that we were talking about three (out of four) different texts.
But fortunately in this case the answers were very similar.
Bye, Frank