On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Kurt Andersen wrote:
Otherwise, perhaps this is an edit that should be added to the spec
before it is finalized?
Even if the spec changed to allow the trailing dot, we still couldn't
allow relative names (because we would have to define what the
base was for quite a few situations), and you would still have to
remove the trailing dot because it would be a while before existing
implementations changed to match the new spec.
I would still justify the existing spec as follows: allowing relative
names is too complex (maybe not - base name could always be the default
domain used when domain is ommited). Since all names are fully qualified, a
trailing dot is redundant, and space can be tight because of the desire to
fit within a DNS UDP packet.
In any case, add your request to the SPF2.1 discussion. SPF1 is strictly
documenting the existing system, warts and all. You will particularly
hate publishing both TXT and SPF RR records. I suspect that the transition
to the SPF RR will never be complete for SPF1, and will have to wait until
SPF2.1 (which will no longer use TXT records).
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
-------
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