Julian Mehnle wrote:
It sure is a departure from RFC 1034, and I'm pretty sure
that _someone_ here intended it when the spec was written.
Same idea as in 2821, for its "at least one dot" rule. John
wrote 2821 and 3696, and he did that intentionally in 2821.
Under debate for 2821bis.
just like I don't see the point in forbidding TLDs from
beginning with digits just because there are currently no
ICANN-registered TLDs beginning with digits.
My bad, I confused 2396 "must start with ALPHA" with 3696
"not only digits". The ABNF for a no nonsense toplabel is
weird, <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor>
toplabel = ( [ label *( "-" ) ] ALPHA *( "-" ) label ) /
( label *( "-" ) ALPHA [ *( "-" ) label ] ) /
( label 1*( "-" ) label )
alphanum = ALPHA / DIGIT ; compare RFC3696
The editing made it uglier than it actually is, pretty form:
toplabel = ( [ label *( "-" )] ALPHA *( "-" ) label ) /
( label *( "-" ) ALPHA [ *( "-" ) label ]) /
( label 1*( "-" ) label )
But that's nothing for SPF, it needs standard track, near to
"updates 1034" (USEFOR's mad but not that mad, don't worry ;-)
But it's too late to change the spec now.
ACK, and CIDR lillyguilding is IMHO also pointless. Bye, Frank
-------
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