spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2007-11-15 03:51:11
Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote six months ago:

  [Stuart:]
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")

Good summary.

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."

+1  I prefer option 1

Scott said 2, Julian proposed 2, I proposed 3.  When the result of a
question is no clear "no" or "rough" consensus the question was wrong,
paraphrasing ASCII-art posted by Brian on the IETF general list... ;-)

We need more facts, example policy:  "v=spf1 a:%{l}.example.org -all"
MAIL FROM "quote...me"@example.org

What's the <target-name> for this beast ?  Does the test suite already
cover something in the direction of quoted strings (+/- quote pairs)
in the local part ?

 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
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>