In
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)44(_dot_)0612202318020(_dot_)22978-100000(_at_)bmsred(_dot_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
"Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com> writes:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Notice that envelope-from in both cases is NOT a dot-atom or
quoted-string. None of '<','>','@' are legal chars for dot-atom:
That's right. Can you add it to http://www.openspf.org/RFC_4408/Errata,
please?
I have updated Errata, and even filled in suggested wording and rationale.
Why do you assume that the examples are wrong and not the ABNF?
Were the examples changed since draft-mengwong-spf-[01]?
Was the ABNF?
If one was changed, why?
What do most SPF implementations generate?
I agree that this appears to be a problem. I don't agree that the
solution is so obvious that such this should be published as an errata
without answering questions such as above.
Actuall, it looks like most of the stuff on the errata page is bogus,
only the missing ABNF for the 'v' macro looks correct to me.
-wayne
-------
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/?list_id=735