Julian Mehnle wrote:
Not that I had a problem with the fact that you changed your
mind and applied the change, but why did you?
Maybe because we read it the same way wanting s/SHOULD/MUST/ ;-)
[include:invalid]
the draft-mengwong-spf-01 behavior, i.e.
SPF(non-existent-domain) == "PermError", makes the most
sense.
ACK, see also a recent discussion in spf-help: Apparently the
Sendmail folks implemented it this way. Scott's argument that
this might confuse new publishers is obviously correct, but all
alternatives are IMHO worse. Add it to the wizard a.s.a.p. is
my best idea to avoid this kind of confusion.
# Do not allow SPF to be applied to non-existent domains.
I disagree with this part. SPF can be "applied" to anything
that's allowed in a DNS query, existing or not. If it does
not exist the result is NONE. Only an include: NONE is bad.
People just shouldn't expect SPF to work on invalid input
data.
Invalid input data are characters above 127, or more than 25x
characters. For something used in mail you could restrict it
to ldh-string or similar, but not generally, e.g. the "_" case.
I suggested renaming "prefix" to "sign" in the grammar
I've some difficulties with "?" as "sign" instead of "prefix".
Irrelevant from my POV => editor's choice or known terminology.
A similar case is the permanent use of "SPF client", from the
POV of a sender that's the MX, a SMTP server. But from a POV
of the DNS server it's of course a DNS client => irrelevant,
let's just be consistent, "SPF client" is confusing but fine.
Bye, Frank