In <42DD8968(_dot_)DA6(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:
wayne wrote:
I would say "yes". Section 4.5 doesn't say "equivalent", it
says "identical".
Fix it somehow, it's some RfC 3597 oddity. Maybe add "(case
insensitively)" to "identical". Don't try "equivalent", it's
okay to sort adjacent directives with the same result in any
way, or to move modifiers around (only in v=spf1, not spf2.0).
Trying to check only the case insensitve parts would be a real pain.
Clearly, "v=spf1 exists:%{l}._spf.%{d} -all" is *NOT* the same as
"v=spf1 exists:%{L}._spf.%{d} -all". Also "v=spf1 a -all foo=T" may
not be the same as "v=spf1 a -all foo=t".
So, you can't just make a case insensitive comparison, you would need
to carefully parse the records and compare only certain parts.
-wayne