On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 03:07:23AM +0000, Julian Mehnle wrote:
* Support both SPF (TYPE99) and TXT formats
Is this wise? IMHO a new version of SPF should only use SPF records,
not TXT records. Why do the extra work?
For backwards compatibility "v=spf1" records can also be found in TXT
record but only if no SPF (type99) record exists (v=spf2.1 or v=spf1).
* Binary (compressed) RR format?
Now would be a good time to decide wether or not to accept both
text and binary (or even mixed? think include...).
I currently would opt for binary only but I may easely change my mind.
* Make "include:" more tolerant:
* Treat "include:domain-without-spf-record" as no-match instead of
error?
Unintended results will happen either way:
a) the included domain normally does have an SPF(TXT) record but due to
a mistake it does no longer have one
b) the included domain does not have such a record
If treated as "no-match" then case [a] is undesirable; the user probably
wants to know there's a problem.
If treated as "error" then case [b] is undesirable; the user doesn't care
enough to understand or investigate.
I think most errors will be type [b] but should ignorance win?
"v=spf1 include:_spf.example.org -all" should IMHO result in an error, not
in a fail.
* Tolerate circular inclusions
(a.org: include:b.org, b.org: include:a.org)
ugh... can we say can of worms?
* Replace "~" qualifier by "testing" flag (op=testing) (so people don't
leave their testing records in "~all" state forever)?
Instead they will leave "op=testing" forever. IOW: what's the benefit?
2c
alex
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
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