Roger Moser wrote:
Then the "sc=" modifier is not a "positional modifier"
according to above brain-dead definition.
Yes, that's what I said (minus "brain-dead" where IBTD):
| That would be a new kind of positional modifier, not
| the variant documented in SPF protocol-03.
It is a position-dependend modifier according to common
sense.
And where does its effect stop, at the end ? Then you have
this problem with m1 m2 m3 in scope s1 and m2 m3 m4 in s2.
You could solve it with scope-start and scope-end modifiers:
beg=s1 m1 beg=s2 m2 m3 end=s1 m4 end=s2
But if you'd take the not so brain-dead Sender-ID definition,
then it's much shorter to get the same effect with spf2.0:
m1 only=s1 m2 m3 m4 only=s2
In other words m1 only in s1, m2 & m3 always, m4 only in s2.
BTW, if you don't like "sc=", you can name it "ot=".
It's not a problem with the name, it's a problem with existing
v=spf1 implementations. The positional modifiers of spf2.0
also don't work with v=spf1. For v=spf1 you need "predicates",
"options", or "properties". I don't care about the name of
this beast, as long as it's short.
Bye, Frank