Mailing List Archive

I just found that section 6.1 addresses part of what I suggested in my
previous message. There, it states:

Unrecognized modifiers are ignored: if an SPF client encounters
modifiers which it does not recognize, it MUST ignore them and
continue processing.

So, I think all that's missing is a statement that an unrecognized mechanism
MUST cause a termination of processing with an "unknown" result.

Daryl Odnert
Tumbleweed Communications
Redwood City, California
daryl.odnert@tumbleweed.com


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-devel@v2.listbox.com
[mailto:owner-spf-devel@v2.listbox.com]On Behalf Of Daryl Odnert
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 11:24 AM
To: 'spf-devel@v2.listbox.com'
Subject: [spf-devel] Question on Section 3.2 of SPF Draft



Just a minor piece of feedback on
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt>

Regarding section 3.2, I'd like to suggest changing the following two
sentences to indicate that they are implementation requirements using the
word MUST, as per RFC2119.

Unknown mechanisms cause processing to abort
with the result "unknown". Unknown modifiers
are ignored by clients.

Perhaps this sentence in section 5 should be similarly modified:

While unrecognized mechanisms cause an immediate
"unknown" abort, unrecognized modifiers are simply
ignored.

Thanks,
Daryl Odnert
Tumbleweed Communications
Redwood City, California
daryl.odnert@tumbleweed.com


_____

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

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