On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, wayne wrote:
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.
Dear Wayne,
Your attention to detail is highly valued. However, in this case,
you missed a small detail. There are three sections, and the "errata" in
question are "suspected errata". Once errata status is verified by
such as yourself, items will be moved to "errata confirmed by
SPF council and approved by draft authors". Eventually, such
approved errata will be published and moved to the top category.
Actually, 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.
I think only two of the suspected errata have merit (the two I
submitted, go figure).
For the Received-SPF examples, there is clearly a conflict between the
ABNF and the examples. It would certainly be convenient if the examples
were correct and the ABNF wrong. Could you propose a revised ABNF
that would allow the unquoted examples, and would be compatible with
appropriate email standards?
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
-------
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