Julian Mehnle wrote:
Why do you want to test _that_ case for crashes and not a million
other weird cases?
I don't know a million other weird cases, I know that one: At the
moment "oemcomputer" is no TLD under ICANN's root, unlike "museum",
"aero", "arpa", "travel", "asia", "mobi", "coop", etc. For a less
volatile test I'd replace "oemcomputer" by "invalid".
http://www.openspf.org/RFC_4408/Errata#permerror-invalid-domains
Who proposed that one??
Dunno, thought it was you.
v=spf1 cannot be changed retroactively like this.
Implementations have to do something with an invalid <target-name>,
"ignore, no match, move on" is another possibility.
There's yet no problem statement for your case,
It's not _my_ case. Whose is it really?
It's a Wiki, it has an edit history, and whoever added it likely
tried to track one of those convoluted test suite threads. If it's
bogus we can throw it out.
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?
If some implementations can handle a:%{h} for an existing A record
for say "museum", others treat it as "ignore, no match, move on",
and some throw PermError, then it obviously harms interoperability.
Frank
-------
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