On Fri, 2004-12-03 at 14:51 -0800, Greg Connor wrote:
Wow, that looks like it's meant to cause trouble for anyone checking SPF.
I guess that will be a good test case to see how various implementations
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Hector Santos wrote:
Does CLASSMATE.COM have a redundant SPF record?:
"v=spf1 mx ptr include:mail.classmates.com -all"
"v=spf1 mx ptr include:classmates.com -all"
Whats the point here?
I suspect they did it by accident.
I have identified multiple hosts who do this accidentally either the
result of a language barrier or simply not spending enough time reading
and understanding. I'm not quite sure what would lead someone to go and
include their own host, or a host that then recurses until the limit
(hopefully its employed I know both libSPF and libspf-alt do) is reached
and the parse is aborted.
Nixtra whom I spoke back and forth with over the course of a week has
fixed their record. It in this case came down to I believe a
combination of language and not enough reading.
This impresses upon me that we might wish to explore additional (if any
exists already) translation of relevant materials to help prevent this
I have not quite yet revealed DDT to the public yet, but it is currently
contacting postmaster(_at_)domain automatically when it finds severely broken
records. We'll see if this helps.
^ ( ( (
((__)) __\|/__ __|+|__ '. ___ .'
(00) (o o) (0~0) ' (> <) '
http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library
http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Read the whitepaper! http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
please go to
Description: This is a digitally signed message part