wayne wrote:
I like that.
+1
They can still have op=pra if the SPF Council allows it.
BTW, please please please read this review of draft-kucherawy
in ietf-822:
<news://news.gmane.org/200505091411(_dot_)13936(_dot_)blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com>
<http://mid.gmane.org/200505091411(_dot_)13936(_dot_)blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com>
Don't think that my reply defeated his point about "adding
mail header fields in transit", so get ready for a battle
about our "Received-SPF".
In another thread on the smtp list they discuss RfC 3463,
looking into your text I don't find any RfC 3463 reference,
is this as you want it ?
Bill Fenner's ABNF checker has a problem with your "empty
rules", maybe ask him how to handle this, he's a nice guy.
That issue was already mentioned in my -01pre2 report:
| You could say something like this (same idea as in RfC 3834
| chapter 5.1 syntax):
|
| The symbols "dot-atom", "quoted-string", "comment", "CFWS",
| and "FWS" are defined in [RFC2821].
It's perfectly possible that this is a hallucination, but I'm
getting very nervous if it's shared by Bill's ABNF checker.
Please ask Bill what to do, if it's only a bug in his tool he
will fix it. He offers also a nice...
<http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/xml2rfc-valid/>
...and 01pre5.xml did NOT validate (you can't have -- within a
comment, maybe use -- -- to bypass this error or just get rid
of the comment).
Bye, Frank