Last minute changes:
== proposed ==
domain-end = ( "." toplabel [ "." ] ) / macro-expand
== original ==
domain-end = ( "." toplabel ) / macro-expand
==============
Two occurences (9.1 and collected ABNF). This introduces an
unnecessary incompatibility with an unknown number of existing
SPF and SenderID implementations, for an example see
<http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss/20813>
Therefore I recommend to disregard this proposal, or get a 3rd
opinion from John C. Klensin, the author of RFC 2821 and 3696.
== proposed ==
toplabel = ALPHA / ALPHA *[ alphanum / "-" ] alphanum
; LDH rule (See [RFC3696])
== original ==
toplabel = <TLD label as per [RFC3696], Section 2>
; LDH rule plus additional TLD restrictions
==============
This prose specification is rather clumsy. RFC 3696 is an
informational RFC, not suited for a normative reference. The
intention is okay, but at this time there exists no RFC with a
proper ABNF for the "not only digits" LDH rule for toplabels.
See draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-07 for a first attempt in this
direction.
All other proposed changes appear to be okay - especially the
points about different policies found in SPF and TXT records
caused by DNS caching.
Regards, F.Ellermann
-------
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