Julian Mehnle wrote:
Fine, we're making progress, so you consider PermError as bad idea.
That leaves "ignore single labels" or "try to match as always".
The difference is, I am _interpreting_ the spec, whereas you are proposing
to _change_ it (by specifying things that weren't previously specified).
My wish to decide this issue is based on an interpretation of the
spec.: IMO the spec. tries hard to get predictable deterministic
results as far as using DNS allows this.
Under this interpretation a situation where implementation X says
PASS and implementation Y says FAIL for the same input (and no DNS
problems) is highly undesirable. It's against the spirit of the
spec.
Clearly there are corner cases where we don't care: If somebody
wants 2000 leading zeros in a place where that's not forbidden -
tough, don't do that, it's an obviously stupid idea.
But a:%{h} and similar cases are not obviously stupid, or rather
not as bad as those leading zeros.
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