On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 09:25:39PM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
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.
I think you're both right. Only, Stuart: you should have made
your point at a moment where it could be included in the spec.
If this would have happened, I guess there's a good chance we
would have agreed on "v=spf[0-9\.a-zA-Z]* being reserved for
SPF and its version, and all other characters being syntax error.
I also think you could pretend that has happened if you wish to
warn those others.
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
As is the equivalent "v=spf1" "-all". By the way, isn't there a
chance that this doe not end up as "v=spf1-all" but could it also
end up as "-allv=spf1" if the strings are long enough?
cheers
Alex
-------
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