Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
But isn't there a case to be made that the owner of the
domain clearly intended to publish an SPF record, and that
a PermError (and resulting DSN that might wake them up) is
the better approach?
Sure, that's only not covered by the spec. You could be in
trouble for a hypothetical version 1A, 11, 1.1, etc. with
v=spf1A, v=spf11, v=spf1.1, etc. The example in chapter 4.5
is v=spf10.
example2.com IN TXT "v=spf1-all"
example2.com IN TXT "v=spf1 -all"
[...]
example2.com would result in no error.
That's a nice case for SPF test suites. Bye, Frank
-------
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