wayne wrote:
To quote RFC2822 section 3.6 "Field defintions"
Keep your ammo for the real battle, I didn't say
that Received-SPF: is impossible or "verboten" ;-)
And it's already clear that draft-kucherawy won't
fly soon enough to replace it in the SPF spec.
If Scott is serious about people not using it,
he should work to get the IETF webpages updated
to no longer recommend it.
Maybe he already fixed it, I can't tell. I tested
both ABNF checkers with the LTRU snytax, and then
Bill's output was more like what I expected. IIRC
Harald (former Chair) also offers an ABNF checker.
And then they were side-tracked by his [Discuss]
on 2234bis or what else, and now the smoke settles.
Bill Fenner. He recommend doing the obvious:
use prose-val rules.
Cute, and I certainly didn't see the "obvious":
| typically restricted to rule name references in
| free-form prose
[...]
| prose-val = "<" *(%x20-3D / %x3F-7E) ">"
And if that's also okay in EBNF, then any "token"
in RfC 3834 or draft-kucherawy or USEFOR imported
from RfC 2045 is sane.
Good to know, "they" (= in the black heli) often
forget to tell me when I make a fool of myself,
maybe hoping that I only need some more rope for
whatever I plan next ;-)
Bye, Frank