-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 1:27 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] No more xxxx=yes please (was: possibilities for
2822)
Scott Kitterman wrote:
So, I think a series of small steps are in order.
From= would be a good first one.
If it's anything in the direction of yes (or no) it
should be an op=
I can see your point. OTOH, when was the last time we seriously discussed
op= anything. Op=lots_of_stuff_here is nice from a record size perspective.
It is not nice from a readability perspective. I don't think there are a
lot of modifiers that come along, so record size isn't a major issue. It
may be better to keep each item separate. They can each, in due course, be
described in their own internet draft.
Otherwise we'd get a zoo of individual modifiers,
all confronted with the same design problems:
I think it can't be a zoo, because these new modifiers are limited to things
that don't change the SPF result because current implementations will ignore
them and future ones are free to. There just aren't so many things that are
worth putting in an SPF record that won't affect the SPF result.
1 - a policy without xxxx=yes is not the same as
xxxx=no, it can be just an "old" policy
Yes.
2 - implementations are free to ignore any xxxx=
(excl. the special case redirect=), all "old"
implementations will certainly ignore xxxx=.
Yes.
3 - Multi xxxx=yes yyyy=no zzzz=1 are excessively
verbose, op=xxxx.noyyyy.zzzz is much shorter,
every byte counts for the UDP limit 512.
Yes, but for those with long records they can split them into subdomains and
deal with it. op=xxx.yyy.whatever is shorter, but that's the only thing its
got going for it. I don't think compactness is worth the reduction in
readability and the unnecessary potential coupling between multiple
indpendent/semi-independent thoughts.
4 - It pisses me seriously off to repeat this about
once per month... :-(
Bye, Frank
http://purl.net/xyzzy/home/test/draft-spf-6-3-options-08.txt
http://purl.net/xyzzy/home/test/draft-spf-6-3-options-08.xml
Sorry. I hadn't been intending to piss you off.
I don't think that there's going to be enough new modifiers that actually
get implemented to worry about stringing them together. I think it's better
to keep them separate entities. We can probably argue about this for a
while now.
Scott K