On Thursday 25 May 2006 10:04, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
You correctly point out that TempError should be for conditions that
are likely to resolve themselves. But on the other hand, we don't
want PermError to be implementation defined. Maybe we should have
had an ImplLimitError result.
Good idea for the future. For now, however, I did not say that "PermError"
should be returned. What I said is that it should be treated as "no
match" for the mechanism in question.
That is how I treat these kinds of issues on the validator. For example, the
RFC says no more than 10 MX. It does not say that if you get more than 10 MX
back it's an error, just don't process more than 10. On the validator I
raise a warning for that indicating that while no error was raised, the
results will not be reliable.
http://www.kitterman.com/spf/validate.html
Scott K
-------
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