On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:15:03 +0200 Alex van den Bogaerdt
<alex(_at_)ergens(_dot_)op(_dot_)het(_dot_)net> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 05:56:42PM +0000, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
Not resulting in a permerror but wrong nevertheless is the absence of a
catch-all (for instance -all) after include.
How is a missing catch-all "all" wrong? It isn't. After the last
mechanism has failed to match, and if there is no "redirect=" modifier,
a default "?all" is assumed. See section 4.7 of the SPF spec.
See RFC 4408 section 1.2, RFC 2119 section 3. Unless there are
valid reasons in particular circumstances, etc. yada yada, it is
wrong to not have a catch all (or a "redirect").
The other way around: an example without such a catch all but also
without mentioning the special status, circumstances, implications
and considerations is wrong.
For SPF record testers, I think it is quite all right to flag a
record without "all" or "redirect" as being wrong. People that
know the ins and outs may still choose to ignore the advice.
I guess I'm confused. There is no difference between a record ending in
?all and one that just falls off the end. I agree it's better to be
explicit for humans, but an SPF library can not distinguish between the two.
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