-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Because "if-fail:" would also be quite useful.
But you could always say "-if:".
No, "-if-pass:example.com" matches (and fails) if example.com gets a
pass. On the other hand, "-if-fail:example.com" matches if example.com
gets a fail.
I didn't mean "-if:" as a replacement for "-if-fail:" but for "if-fail:"
(without the "-" qualifier, exactly as you originally wrote it).
"if-fail:" turns a "Fail" into a match & "Pass", and turns a "Pass" into a
mismatch.
"-if:" turns a "Fail" into a mismatch, and turns a "Pass" into a match &
"Fail".
So, right, they're not equivalent. Sorry for the confusion.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFESC/wL7PKlBZWjsRAuKEAKC8p6GWhVSrAqjQDW4/8ihDEN3QugCgi37X
WqcvP/wtpmrt4lO8XVacOjo=
=QEAa
-----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