-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of Lennon
- Orcon
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 8:31 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: SPF test suite
Tricky for validators, it's almost an error, but not in
practice. They could display two warnings:
1 - redirect=any with "all" is useless
2 - redirect=self would be an error without "all"
I think these 2 options are the best or until the cpec changes and the
"loophole" is fixed (if ever) (if you want to call it that)
I'd describe this as another case where the result may not be what the
sender intended, but it's not an error. As we discussed recently, there are
a lot of these. Among my favorite is an IP address after an a or mx
mechanism. It's not an error, but it never matches because while it's a
technically valid domain name (has a dot), there is no TLD for .123 (or
whatever).
I raise a warning on that kind of thing now.
Scott K