spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Test tool for type 99

2005-07-19 17:20:26
wayne wrote:
 
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".

Ugh, okay, "case-insensitive" won't work, and a recommendation
to use lower case doesn't fly with upper case macros.  OTOH we
don't need the upper case macros outside of an exp= TXT record,
and the explanation is IIRC always TXT, never SPF / TYPE99 (?)

| Uppercased macros expand exactly as their lower case
| equivalents, and are then URL escaped.  URL escaping must be
| performed for characters not in the "uric" set, which is
| defined in [RFC3986].

Yes, I'd wish that STD 66 defines the "uric" set, unfortunately
it does not.  Time to start a serious bug list with all issues
that can't be fixed for the experimental RfC.

                            Bye, Frank