Bug#431239: [spf-devel] Re: Patches from Robert Millan

On Friday 13 July 2007 19:25, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> Scott Kitterman wrote:

> > The second part of the change, changing the SPF None response string
> > from
> >
> > "%s is neither permitted nor denied by %s",
> >
> > to
> >
> > "%s doesn't provide an SPF record"
> >
> > is a wording improvement, but given that it's been this way for several
> > years, I don't know if there are programs that are dependent on that
> > string.
>
> If there was any code depending on the explanatory result text, then that
> would be a design bug in such code.
>
> > So, I'd suggest this is an improvement, but not entirely without risk.
> > I'd tend not to want to make it, but I could understand either way.
>
> I say go ahead with the change.  I wouldn't... er... would not use a
> contraction, though.  Say "%s does not provide an SPF record" instead.

Upon reflection, I agree with Julian.  Go for it.

Scott K