On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Following Stuart's rationale would mean that we also should not throw a
PermError on syntax errors if some mechanism matches before the faulty
syntax is reached -- after all, if we can get a result, any bad syntax in
later parts isn't critical, is it?
No, because you parse the entire record first as instructed.
With Julian's rationale, some implementations would permerror, and
some would ignore exp=. This is not good. In fact, since implementations are
allowed to ignore exp modifier and not implement it, I could just pretend that
for records with empty domain-spec, I am ignoring the exp modifier.
"exp=" is perfectly valid syntax when you don't implement exp.
Or is Julian claiming that even implementations that don't support
exp must still throw permerror when the argument is not a domain spec?
--
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