[mail-vet-discuss] tightening the ABNF

[Michael Thomas]

Tony Hansen wrote:
> I disagree with this suggestion. I don't think it's necessary to move 
> all semantics down into the syntactic level. The lexical layer doesn't 
> need to be overloaded to this degree.
> 
> Just my two bits; YMMV.

So do you also disagree with explaining and limiting which methods
should use the various ptypes? Neither the syntax or discussion of
semantics gives any guidance at all.

		Mike

> 
> 	Tony Hansen
> 	tony at att.com
> 
> Michael Thomas wrote:
>> I'd like to suggest that the current ABNF doesn't do a very good job at
>> limiting silly states, in particular about the relationship of propspecs
>> to methodspecs. What exactly does dkim=hardfail smtp.mailfrom mean? I'm
>> pretty sure that it's meaningless, but neither does the ABNF limit this,
>> nor does the current draft even discuss why you'd choose one of the
>> ptypes at all.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html