-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Please let's continue this discussion on spf-discuss, as it now is really
about the spec, not about implementing it anymore.
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
"Stuart D. Gathman" wrote:
The grammar for modifier is:
modifier = redirect / explanation / unknown-modifier
So you can only apply the unknown-modifier syntax if it's not
redirect or explanation.
Yes, and that's why the literal "redirect=" is a valid unknown-modifier
and does not match the redirect modifier. Let me explain:
[...]
At last we check the unknown-modifier token, defined as:
unknown-modifier = name "=" macro-string
If you look at the gramma you will find that our "redirect" will match
the name toke, our "=" will match the "=" and empty string matches the
macro-string token.
No, no, no. This is all backwards. Again, you're trying to put the letter
of the spec before the intent of the spec. I already tried to explain why
having unknown-modifier match known modifiers is lawyeristic nonsense
- -- no offense.
Very cut and dried (although you can complain
that it is stupid, and campaign to have it changed for v=spf3).
That's why we have a test suite.
I don't agree with this: the rule are in the spec. If the testsuite is
not compliant with the spec then it is an useless specification. If you
want to give power to the testsuite then you have to add it to the
specification.
If you don't think that the test suite can be authoritative, then why do
you even care?
Please note that I think that what the testsuite expect makes much more
sense than what the spec grammar declare, but they are clearly
incompatible, so you should simply add a rule to the specification
adding one of this:
1) domain-spec in the grammar should also match the empty string and a
paragraph in the spec should say that an empty domain-spec => permerror.
No. Why would a domain-spec ever be allowed to be empty? That would be
like saying "let a cidr-length be empty!".
2) the name token from the unkown-modifier should be declared so that
"exp" and "redirect" do not match.
I think this is the direction we're going in.
3) Otherwise you'll have to change the whole grammar so that that
modifier = name "=" macro-string
And then move all of the logic/syntax specification for the case where
name matches "exp" or "redirect" outside from the grammar.
Possible, but not nice.
4) Change macro-string token definition to:
macro-string = 1*( macro-expand / macro-literal )
But I'm not sure about possible side-effects of this change.
Furthermore this would not fix your current bad interpretation of a
syntax error in a "redirect=syntax-error" literal (this would be
recognized as unknown-modifier anyway).
Yeah, let's forget about that one.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFr2GswL7PKlBZWjsRAnmiAJ4hizmK7itSmrvBt3iv0a2tufFVLQCeMzn0
5Y2g24M4p5ukiFaAsF+35I0=
=s+Yu
-----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