spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] "Last Call" pending exp= (empty) erratum

2007-05-23 13:51:22
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 16:36, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
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."

No.  I meant #2.

| or if there are syntax errors in the explanation string, then
| proceed as if no exp modifier was given.

So a bad exp is a bad exp, but it doesn't raise an error, you just ignore the 
exp.

Unless I misunderstood what Frank was after.

Scott K

-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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