-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Norman Maurer wrote:
In fact we apply unknown-modifier BECAUSE "redirect=" is not a
redirect modifier by the gramma. So if you guys want to enforce the
interpretations you need to integrate the explanation in the spec.
This is an excellent point. It would put Julian's argument to rest
once and for all, if true.
Let me restate it. Modifier is defined as:
modifier = redirect | explanation | unknown-modifier
Therefore, exp= does not match explanation, but it *does* match
unknown modifier, and is not a syntax error.
OMG! You must be kidding! If we followed this interpretation, we could
throw away the grammar definitions for all the known modifiers, because
they'd be simply irrelevant.
Are you really saying that "unknown-modifier" should have been defined as:
unknown-modifier = unknown-modifier-name "=" macro-string
unknown-modifier-name = ( "a" / "b" / "c" / "d" ) name-tail /
"e" (
"" /
( DIGIT / "-" / "_" / "." ) name-tail /
( "a" / ... / "w" ) name-tail /
"x" (
"" /
( DIGIT / "-" / "_" / "." ) name-tail /
( "a" / ... / "o" ) name-tail /
( "q" / ... / "z" ) name-tail
) /
( "y" / "z" ) name-tail
) /
( "f" / ... / "q" ) name-tail /
"r" (
; you get the point!
) /
( "s" / ... / "z" ) name-tail
name-tail = *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "_" / "." )
And that still would have allowed "op=#34534l.5,34" despite the "op=" spec
according to your interpretation!
For me, it is completely obvious that the <name> in the <unknown-modifier>
definition excludes the names of known modifiers (for whatever a given
implementation considers "known"). *sigh*
Similarly, "exp=-all" does not match explanation, but it does match
unknown-modifier, so it is not a permerror.
...
This means the grammar *is* consistent with 6.2/4, empty domain-spec
is an unknown-modifier according to the grammar, and MUST be ignored.
Sorry Julian, it looks like you'll just have to start a campaign for
v=spf3.
Whatever.
This is starting to piss me off.
Why don't you look into what the spec is _really_ trying to say for a
change instead of what its letters are?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFrsgGwL7PKlBZWjsRAiC3AJ93Bs1MYEMU/YDn6UIRKGxfRnb0WACeMOTx
cXokPxRdElritKnE96CZ+ls=
=rvHy
-----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