RE: Unknown mechanisms
"Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DFA8D@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 4:05 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Unknown mechanisms > > > Fair enough. > > There is no such thing as an "unknown mechanism". The <mechanism> > syntax is a finite enumeration of known mechanisms. Anything else > could be anything, a broken modifier, a funny TXT record unrelated > to v=spf1, or nobody knows what, except that it's no valid v=spf1. RFC4408 is fine as it is in a pure sense, but nowhere does it explicitly answer the question "What do I do if there's a bogus mechanism in here but the record otherwise looks correct?" It's vaguely in there. I think it should be explicitly in there. Yes, it's in the ABNF, and the definition of "permerror" basically covers it. Is there harm in explicitly connecting the two?