-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Wayne Schlitt wrote:
Julian Mehnle writes:
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
[...] "if-fail:" would also be quite useful.
But you could always say "-if:".
No, assuming you are saying that "-if:" is the same as "-include:xxx",
that means "if the evaluation of xxx is PASS, then return FAIL".
So why could you not say "-if:"? Because "-if:something-that-returns-
neutral" would match while "if-fail:" would _not_ match?
If that's what you mean, then do we need "if-pass:", "if-fail:",
"if-neutral:", and "if-softfail:"? I don't see the point...
So, I think "if" would be just as bad, if not worse, than "include".
Please explain.
I've suggested an "if-<result>:" form before, back when I was
complaining that "include:" was horribly named. I'm not sure that it
would really be that useful though. The two cases that people seem to
want is the "if-pass" case, and the "if eval(xxx) returns a result,
then return that result". The latter is somewhat what redirect= does,
but it doesn't allow you to do things like this:
v=spf1 a call:isp.com -all exp=_spfexp.%{d}"
Where, isp.com gives a default result of ?all and we want to make a
stronger statement. Also, with redirect=, we can't use our own exp=
text.
But "Neutral" fits "returns a result", too, so "call:isp.com" would yield
"Neutral" instead of passing on to "-all".
Besides, if you want to downgrade an authenticity assertion ("legitimacy
assertion" for the "Only PGP can assert authenticity" folks), it may be
better to devise some other mechanism for that.
config.com text "v=spf1 include:216.28.158.0/24 include:67.15.56.0/24
include:67.15.57.0/24 include:www.2.sitegalore.com
include:66.219.135.0/24" " -all"
Seriously, I refuse to take people into account who don't read the
fine manual. It's really not that hard to understand.
If you need to read the directions, it is too complicated.
That may apply to wrist watches and microwave ovens, but some things are
slightly more complex to operate without having read the manual.
I'm somewhat serious here. Having something with "sharp edges" and
saying people should just learn to avoid those edges is just bad design.
So you consider the distinction between "a:"/"ip4:" and "include:" a "sharp
edge" that ought to be optimized away?
I highly recommend reading "The Design of Everyday Things".
DNS is hardly an everyday thing for domain owners.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFEGGOwL7PKlBZWjsRAkN0AJkBu92ABDbaLvsTPZYLbMJziHFlVQCbBGhE
L9fvLpcxnsIhPZa2lBR15YM=
=e2t4
-----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