----- Original Message -----
From: "wayne" <wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net>
The include: mechanism is really badly named. It should
be something like "if-pass" or something. It neither acts
like a macro-processor-type include of the record at the
target domain, nor does it act like programming "call". It
acts like 'if (eval(target) == Pass ) return prefix;'.
I just spent a little more time on your specs.
Personally, I like the OLD table, your table is confusing.
The old one had a better and clearly approach to describing this
(somewhat illogical) INCLUDE concept.
It might make sense as a generalized description targetted for administrators,
but for developers, the old layout was better. I'm talking about this:
| pass => match, return the prefix value for "include"
| fail => no match, continue processing
| softfail => no match, continue processing
| neutral => no match, continue processing
| error => error, abort
| unknown => unknown, abort
| none => unknown, abort # see below
Your table removes the table column and moves it to the worded statement. Ok,
but for the new developer reading this for the first time, it may not be so
clear. The above shoots out at him with direct logic.
Anyway, thanks Wayne for all your hard work and dedication for SPF.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
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