Re: Problems with spf testsuite and dns specification
Julian Mehnle <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.spam.spf.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Sunday 17 June 2007 04:18, Julian Mehnle wrote: > > Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > [...] If someone want to do an errata to say multiple <b> > > > non-identical </b> records, I'm all for it. There can be no harm in > > > multiple records that are identical, it generates no ambiguity. > > > > This _might_ have been the best resolution 2-3 years ago. However, > > now we cannot do that anymore, as it would require implementations to > > check for whether multiple records are identical or not. And grafting > > this onto RFC 4408 with a "SHOULD" (i.e. not strictly requiring the > > new behavior) wouldn't solve the problem at hand. > > OK. How about MUST Permerror on multiple SPF records, except > implementations MAY treat multiple identical records as a single record? I think we could do that. But this would still just make the inconclusive interpretation of the spec explicit, and leave the problem to be fixed in the test suite. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGdkjfwL7PKlBZWjsRAmbUAKCcBP30ua0+kRGLZhb6o4GnhbPHQgCgp/bL mvlep8E8rLjdDfq0i3GDUNM= =L4Al -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=6959932&user_secret=62b4c45f Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com