On Wed, 23 May 2007, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I like option 2 because I don't like the idea that messing up the explanation
causes SPF errors. The exp modifier is about why something happened and
shouldn't change what happens.
I think you meant option 1.
I think they could be reworded as follows:
Option 1 never gives permerror for empty exp.
Option 2 gives permerror for both implicit and explicit empty exp
Option 3 gives permerror for explicit empty exp ("exp="), but not
for implicit empty exp (as a result of macro expansion, e.g. "exp=%h")
I favor option 1, for the same reason as Scott. I could live with Option 3:
"Ok, someone clearly screwed up with an explicit exp=, but don't let screwy HELO
cause an SPF permerror on an otherwise syntactically valid record."
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com