-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
the test suite should not require any specific behavior.
Well, so far nobody proposed that "crash" or "TempError" is acceptable.
Why would an implementation crash on "a:%{h}" with <helo> = "OEMCOMPUTER"?
Why do you want to test _that_ case for crashes and not a million other
weird cases?
I've tracked this issue directly below your similar problem with invalid
domains:
http://www.openspf.org/RFC_4408/Errata#permerror-invalid-domains
Who proposed that one??
I certainly did not propose that for v=spf1. I said I'd agree that v=spf3
should work this way, but that v=spf1 cannot be changed retroactively like
this.
There's yet no problem statement for your case,
It's not _my_ case. Whose is it really?
the spec doesn't say "MUST be an FQDN" or anything to
that effect.
<target-name> is clearly underspecified, and as that has confused several
developers it's also a clear erratum.
Unspecifiedness is NOT generally a bug, and confused developers aren't a
good enough justification for specifying _new_ behavior in v=spf1.
Unspecifiedness is a bug only when it harms interoperability. Is this the
case here?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGBk4uwL7PKlBZWjsRAhxyAKDRzGgDv65KSxHrGWeBBITDLEpAWgCg6ZB6
bb0ZyA4qOpYJUoJKuOKr7Hw=
=hYez
-----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