-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com] On Behalf Of Scott
Kitterman
Sent: donderdag 7 april 2005 4:43
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] IESG evaluation of SPF
I would like to add, though, that I might be persuaded to have the
sentence say:
"Checking other identities against SPF records is undocumented."
"undocumented", AFAICT, has a subtle connotation, within the
technical world, which rings close to: "You could probably do it, but
the procedure is not recommended; so, go ahead, but at your own risk."
How about, "Outside the scope of the SPF design".
Like Julian said: "The current SPF Classic specification -- unfortunately,
some might say -- defines not just the SPF algorithm, but also how it is
to be applied to "v=spf1" records in particular."
Your suggestion covers that idea. But it may sound a bit too neutral. I
would, myself, probably more go for something which stresses the
(probable) unfavorable result of the action; like:
"Checking other identities against SPF records is undocumented."
Or (stronger):
"The result of checking other identities against SPF records is undefined."
And, of course, the existing:
"Checking other identities against SPF records is NOT
RECOMMENDED because there are cases that are known to give
incorrect results."
As long as we can all agree on a wording which makes clear that using
"v=spf1" records for anything else than what they were designed for, is
undesireable because there are cases that are known to give incorrect
results, then I would say we are on the same page.
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx