spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Use of New Mask Mechanism

2005-03-26 13:39:47
On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 13:19, David MacQuigg wrote:

After processing the mask, if there is any match, proceed with the terms as 
usual.  If there is no match, skip processing any terms except 'all', and 
don't call for any remainder of a truncated record.

Will this even work?  In chained records, the -all is in the final
record, and the mask is supposed to allow the evaluator to abort sooner
without looking up those records.  It won't have to evaluate them except
for looking for redirect= to finally get to an all so it can extract the
+, -, ~ or ? from it.

On the other hand, maybe the mask modifier should encourage people to
get their network in order so they can use -all.  Then they can use the
mask modifier and keep the same result (+-?~) across the entire IP
address space.


On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 10:53, Radu Hociung wrote: 
Actually, if I read the above correctly, -m= is not legal. m-= is ok, 
but m~= and m?= are not. So lets make it

    m = [PREFIX] [IP notation]

This fits within the syntax but is super unintuitive because it's
different from everything else.  Fortunately, only compilers will be
generating it.



Frank's negated-inclusive-include (or whatever you wanna call it), while
being addition queries, doesn't have this problem -- the entire SPF
syntax remains available.
-- 
Andy Bakun <spf(_at_)leave-it-to-grace(_dot_)com>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>