[mail-vet-discuss] tightening the ABNF

[Tony Hansen]

I think it would be good to explain the use of the various methods with 
the various ptypes. I just don't agree with it being placed into the 
syntax layer.

	Tony Hansen
	tony at att.com

Michael Thomas wrote:
> 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 
>