spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

[spf-discuss] Re: op= question

2007-01-14 05:12:54
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
I'm parsing op= in pyspf.  (Not doing anything with the options yet.) 
As I understand it the syntax is:

      "op" "="  name *( "," name )

Q1: should the options from an include domain be included?
Q2: should the set of options be cleared for redirect?

IMO, both answers should be NO.

I said this several times before.

The answer very obviously is that options need to specify their semantics 
with regard to "include:" and "redirect=" explicitly.

Frank Ellermann wrote:
Should new modifiers define their own behaviour wrt redirect=, follow
exp= or not ?  Your proposal would run into subtle problems for cases
like this:

a.example SPF "v=spf1 op=helo redirect=b.example"
b.example SPF "v=spf1 op=nohelo"

The draft says "helo" and "nohelo" MUST NOT be used together, they are
mutually exclusive.  Let's stick to the exp= model, modifiers are local
(per record) and don't cross redirect=.

No.  Unless you are willing to needlessly limit the potential semantics of 
new options, this should not be globally defined for all options.

each modifier inventing its own rules can't be a good idea. 

Why?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFqh3wwL7PKlBZWjsRAgIcAKCNQtWzj7h5gGikpf34fg4+uh8flACfTFXg
Db7IcwOd4HSf1A3N9GZ5sHs=
=v4XS
-----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/?list_id=735

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>