Re: TLDs

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Julian Mehnle wrote:
> > the test suite should not require any specific behavior.
>
> Well, so far nobody proposed that "crash" or "TempError" is acceptable. 

Why would an implementation crash on "a:%{h}" with <helo> = "OEMCOMPUTER"?

Why do you want to test _that_ case for crashes and not a million other 
weird cases?


> I've tracked this issue directly below your similar problem with invalid
> domains:
>
> http://www.openspf.org/RFC_4408/Errata#permerror-invalid-domains

Who proposed that one??

I certainly did not propose that for v=spf1.  I said I'd agree that v=spf3 
should work this way, but that v=spf1 cannot be changed retroactively like 
this.

> There's yet no problem statement for your case,

It's not _my_ case.  Whose is it really?

> > the spec doesn't say "MUST be an FQDN" or anything to
> > that effect.
>
> <target-name> is clearly underspecified, and as that has confused several
> developers it's also a clear erratum.

Unspecifiedness is NOT generally a bug, and confused developers aren't a 
good enough justification for specifying _new_ behavior in v=spf1.

Unspecifiedness is a bug only when it harms interoperability.  Is this the 
case here?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGBk4uwL7PKlBZWjsRAhxyAKDRzGgDv65KSxHrGWeBBITDLEpAWgCg6ZB6
bb0ZyA4qOpYJUoJKuOKr7Hw=
=hYez
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=1007