In <4184005A(_dot_)504D(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:
wayne wrote:
I just realized that I *do* remember one SPF implementation
that doesn't (didn't?) support the the format of the sc=
modifier that Roger suggest
It's not a question of what you or James or Roger _could_ do.
Of course you _can_ implement v=spf2 whenever it pleases you.
Yes.
But you can't modify implementations in the wild.
This is correct.
So if an
idea like _positional_ modifiers (sc= or protocol-03 style) is
not part of all running v=spf1 code, you cannot add it now to
v=spf1.
This is where you miss the point.
All SPF implementations that I know of (except one, which I'm pretty
sure has been updated) unknown modifiers anywhere they appeared in the
SPF record. It makes no difference how many times the unknown
modifier appeared, they would all be ignored.
So, as long as the scoping modifier can not remove the MAIL FROM or
HELO scopes, a sc= modifier is completely compatible with v=spf1.
if you are so knowledgeable about SPF implementations
I'm absolutely sure that libspf2 does not support sc=pra, [...]
libspf2 does not implement PRA checking, and therefore should ignore
any sc=pra modifiers.
this idea is less than one day old.
Since when is Jul 8th only a day ago?
The first mention of an "sc=" modifier I could find is:
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200407/0139.html
Of course, as this post makes clear, discussions of similar concepts
using other modifier names had been going on for some time. In fact,
the scope= modifier was once a part of the official spec.
I *really* don't think we should be trying to invent a new
SPF-classic.
v
So why are you claiming that sc=pra in v=spf1 policies is no
problem with existing implementations ? ^
Because the only people who need to pay attention to it are people who
implement the PRA scope.
-wayne