In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Julian Mehnle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We're working on an SPF implementation for our spam filter and noticed an > ambiguity on the Mechanism Syntax result/explanation. > > This statement: > fail - The SPF record does not designate the host to be allowed to send > > can easily be interpreted as the absence of an action specified, and > confused with the result "none" (described above it). We are in the process of overhauling the website, and you are right, this is not as well phrased as it should be. We will try to clean it up. That said, I would like to stress, however, that if you are creating a new implementation of SPF, that you really need to reference the real spec, RFC4408. We put a *lot* of work into polishing the spec and debating the correct phrasing of almost every sentence. See: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4408.txt http://new.openspf.org/Specifications The spec is intended to try and match the existing implementations, the previous specs, and the critical items that we have learned about during the deployment of SPF. In the cases where these three goals conflict, we tried hard to choose the safest and most compatible option. Relying any other document, be it our website, other websites, older specs, published books, etc., will likely give you worse results in practice. -wayne ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
