-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Terry Fielder wrote on spf-council (oops!):
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
I had a horrible thought. What if allowing redundant trailing dots
makes SPF publishers think they can use relative domains?
Then they obviously haven't read Section 4.8, "Domain Specification".
Granted. Your point is... :)
The point of the trailing dot is to distinguish between relative and
absolute domain references. Allowing the trailing dot could mislead
some into thinking that SPF in some way supports relative paths. Its a
misconception which could be resolved IF they read the whole spec. But
that's a big IF.
If they read the spec hastily enough to miss the relevant part in Section
4.8, then I'll guarantee you they will have missed, too, the part in
Section 8.1 that domains are allowed to have a trailing dot in SPF records
in the first place.
The point is, if "host.example.com" is correct for SPF records, then
"host.example.com." should by all means be accepted, too. (And this was
the original reason why this change was proposed.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEKu37wL7PKlBZWjsRAnvSAKDYMhoRviwuEbzaN1jf1cOL8hc3uwCdFS0W
xJ7OTUt35L1lX8RDuMFTJB0=
=hem4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
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