Craig Whitmore wrote:
188.8.131.52/0 is well quite incorrect
ip4:184.108.40.206/0 is the AFAIK same as ip4:0.0.0.0/0
probably not what they wanted, but syntatically okay.
Saying that it's incorrent could make sense, but I'm
not sure how your script decided this.
SPF returns "unknown .. " in these errors which
sendmail returns back "550 5.5.2"
Yes, "unknown" was the predecessor of "PermError"
What should I do TempFail it?
No, won't help, the other side has to fix this, not
only try again later.
That's apparently what you do, 550 5.5.2, makes sense.
what do the RFC's say when SPF entries cannot be
"PermError", Wayne's draft -00 proposed 550 5.5.2 ;-)
Later in the RfC he removed it saying "moo", somehow
slipping through several SPF Council review requests.
The only known issue in the latest spec. from my POV.