-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Scott Kitterman wrote:
The exp modifier provides explanatory information to amplify the
rationale for the result. It should ever change the result. A bad exp
producing a permerror is madness.
Ignoring the grammar for a moment (as you did), why should "exp=-all" be
ignored, but "exp:exp.%{d}" should not? I mean, it's just a typo after
all, right? Making such a distinction would be kind of arbitrary.
Sorry, but the "a bad exp should never change the result" rationale just
doesn't extend to syntax mistakes. That concept was never meant to keep
syntax errors in an "exp=" under the cover. It was meant to prevent
"external" (external to the SPF record, thus potentially beyond the record
owner's control) circumstances from interfering with the SPF result
determination. Syntax errors in "exp=", however, are _internal_ to the
SPF record.
Remember the idea behind always throwing a PermError even if a match is
found _before_ any syntax errors: expose syntax errors right away, get the
record fixed soon. That idea should apply in this case.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFrsMJwL7PKlBZWjsRAkWaAKDnBe0fscv6FhU++xfrH0u4g5EOJACgmWzB
9rTOu3n+acoG2iQtv0GTqSo=
=U0XV
-----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