Re: Unknown mechanisms
Dotzero <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAJ4XoYcXFLz-W17-T0+dhmGuGXrt9CFMWGzOHNKF8kQ2QX-kqA@mail.gmail.com> |
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Scott Kitterman [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 11:06 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Unknown mechanisms >> >> New mechanisms (unlike new modifiers) can change the SPF result. If we were to >> add a new mechanism, then we'd have to bump the version. If an unknown >> mechanism is encountered, the correct result is permerror. > > Fair enough. > > I'd like that to be explicit. As it is now an implementer could decide that ignoring unknown mechanisms is simplest (and a common practice, such as in DKIM and its friends), leaving the remaining record parsable and usable. Something like "An SPF-aware receiver encountering an unknown mechanism MUST return a 'permerror' result" would be good to add in the right place. > > -MSK > > Being explicit makes sense to me.