On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 14:00 +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
unknown modifiers get ignored, unknown mechanisms are an
error.
Yes, the latter is a syntax error.
If this is not in the draft anymore, it should go back in
Implicitly clear, the only possible confusion is in 4.5.1:
| Terms that do not contain any of "=", ":" or "/" are
| mechanisms.
Maybe adding "a defined below" would be clearer. The word
"habeas" certainly has no "=", ":", or "/", but it's still
no valid term, let alone a mechanism.
And what happens to the case where someone comes up with a really cool
new mechanism, will then the version number of spf be updated and thus
invalidate all the old ones, most likely requiring people to have both
spf1 and spf9 or whatever records in their DNS (not that it is a big
burden but... ;)
It would IMHO be better to add:
"Unknown mechanisms should be ignored for expression evaluation"
Then when there is "pgp" or "habeas" all of a sudden in somebodies
expression, the engine which does not know it can ignore it.
The same goes for instance for implementations not wanting to add ip4 or
ip6 support, doesn't want to use 'redirect' etc.
Possible better:
"When encountering an unknown mechanisms an expression containing a
'-all' should be evaluated as a '?all' as the mechanism is unknown and
thus gave an unknown result"
This also allows SPF to be extended without much issues, because it is
known how these cases must be handled by clients. Which returns me to
the other question, what is a client supposed to do with "v=spf2"?
Greets,
Jeroen
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Read the whitepaper! http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part