scott at kitterman
Sep 19, 2006, 6:31 AM
Post #1 of 1
(1019 views)
Permalink
|
|
Re: Re: Disagreement over meaning of mx-limit in RFC
|
|
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:44:59 +0000 Julian Mehnle <julian [at] mehnle> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Frank Ellermann wrote:
>> Julian Mehnle wrote:
>> > I therefore agree with the approach of permitting both PermError and
>> > another possible result in the relevant test case.
>>
>> A bogus PermError spells "non-conforming" so clearly, that it would be a
>> complete waste of time to check any other test case.
>
>Maybe. A "processing limit exceeded" PermError isn't bogus, though.
>
The fundamental difference, IMO, is that all the explicit PermError cases are about
errors/limits within the SPF record. MX and PTR limits are related to DNS configuration
outside of SPF and so treating them differently in order to avoid imposing
requirements on other protocols is appropriate.
I suppose if we still called PermError Unknown, I might be more likely to
agree with you, but I lost that point and have moved on.
The more I think about this, the more I think the RFC is correct and
silently not matching is the best out of a selection of poor choices.
Scott K
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel [at] v2
|
