"Chris Haynes" recommended:
"jpinkerton" suggested:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Haynes" <chris(_at_)harvington(_dot_)org(_dot_)uk>
SPF should define (even at this late day) a new modifier for spf1: "pra"
with a
single legal value "yes".
...
<snip>
I have only one slight amendment to suggest.
If the spec is to remain stable in spite of future protocols possibly
wanting to use v=spf1, the record should not mention PRA by name. What if
Sendmail comes up with a different way to milter v=spf1 records and calls it
SMM? We need a modifier which allows publishers to tell the world that they
don't mind anyone using their v=spf1 record for protocols other than spf.
something like OP=yes (Other Protocols).
<snip >
I don't like the idea of an open-ended invitation to use the record for as-yet
unidentified purposes, unless the publisher _really_ intends that..
I hereby modify my proposal to the use of a modifier "op", as you suggest, but
it must give specific authority for the use of the record with each specific
protocol in a comma-separated list, e.g.
"op=pra,smm"
So now the PRA test may only be applied if the "pra" identifier is among the
values in the "op" list.
The permitted values for the "op" modifier list contents are to be recorded in
experimental I-Ds.
Note that the use of SFP records in SPF tests is _always_ permitted.
If any record publisher wants to be really helpful to whatever experiments may
arise in the future, we can define a pseudo-protocol "any", so that publishing
"op=any" means that the publisher is inviting unrestricted use of her SPF
records (and is prepared for the consequences).
Chris
Actually. I've just thought of a further slight change.
We are talking about the use of the SPF _Protocol_ records by other _Tests_.
So what we are listing is Other Tests, not other protocols. So "op" is
misleading.
The name of the modifier should obviously be "ot" .
So a typical entry is now:
"ot=pra,smm"
<impish-grin />
Chris Haynes