-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Julian Mehnle wrote:
[ "a:<64chars>.bar" / "a:%{macro-that-expands-to-64+chars}.bar" ]
I have thought long about how a PermError (let alone TempError) could
be justified for those cases, but I couldn't find a reasonable
rationale, so I took the liberty of narrowing it down to "no-match".
Is there any dissent?
[...]
What about the attached diff? It hopefully resolves all open concerns.
No opposition to that patch was raised, so I now committed exactly that,
as r95 of the test suite:
http://www.openspf.org/source/project/test-suite/rfc4408-tests.yml?view=log
http://www.openspf.org/source/project/test-suite/rfc4408-tests.yml?r1=94&r2=95
Can we now make a new test suite release?
If not, then do we really need an erratum (currently noted as
<http://www.openspf.org/RFC_4408/Errata#permerror-invalid-domains>)
codifying the "no-match" behavior, or can we just drop the draft
erratum entry?
Any comments on that?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFH6ss/wL7PKlBZWjsRAkQqAKCt0wzlX9w9h9h3qVbw7hxLmFejswCg2gns
oGmCozTB7DJTcmQ/jZ90QTo=
=Uprt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com