spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 63/64 and two minor -01 problems

2005-05-24 06:29:26
wayne wrote:

I didn't like RFC821, since it will be obsoletedby RFC2821
Real Soon Now.

"Real Soon Now" is some grumpy joke, right ?  It's over four
years old, and it has a rather long list of errata.  But it
has "standard dotted quad", the name is <IPv4-address-literal>.

Another source is STD 66 <IPv4address> - you have both already,
so it doesn't matter.

please remove '"exp" counted' in 10.1 - throwing a PermError
after the result is clear is rubbish)
 
If I recall correctly, this was discussed and people really
wanted exp= to be counted.

Yes, it was discussed, but TTBOMK people agreed that when a
client already has a solid FAIL it makes no sense to "reduce"
this to a PermError only because of one additional exp= query.

It would essentially limit policies with their own exp= to nine
counted mechanisms.  Makes no sense.  Not that I'm suddenly an
exp= fan, but at least it should work as expected. 

Unrelated, out of curiosity, is iesg@ the IESG equivalent to
the spf-council list, is it public ?  Or is it some "JFTR" mail
device for internal purposes ?
                                Bye, Frank



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>