-----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
Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Sent: donderdag 7 april 2005 19:49
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] IESG evaluation of SPF
If the wording "NOT RECOMMENDED" were to become the
proverbial sand the IESG digs its heels in to make a stand,
then yes, I might be willing to say results of such tests are
considered "undefined" (or words to that effect). For one,
because it's rather a blanket-statement to say "MUST NOT"
against other uses of "v-spf1" records than intended, when
with 'other uses' we mean both current techniques and all
thinkable future uses. I mean, it is not unthinkable that
something will come along that, as part of its overall
scheme, checks against a header element they know is set to
the same value as the MAIL FROM entity (for which "v-spf1"
records could well be used). "NOT RECOMMENDED" therefore
still feels adequate enough to me.
It is not a permitted term of art.
You are asking them for something they are most unlikely to grant and
which will be meaningless if granted.
Huh? RFC 2119 ("Best Current Practices"), Section 4, reads:
4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
before implementing any behavior described with this label.
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx