On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 09:05:07PM -0500, Philip Gladstone wrote:
| localpart:rlp mechanism. I'd like to redefine 'include' so that it
| behaves the same way as localpart:rlp. Currently, you can't emulate
| localpart:rlp with include:%{ur}.lp._spf.whatever as you can't
| return a deny from an include. Is there a good reaon for this?
|
so we need an "exec" in additon to "include". localpart right now acts
as "exec". include is keep-searching-for-allow, exec will completely
replace the existing directive set.
| Fixing this in include would also help out another issue. I have a bunch
| of email domains and I'd like to have a single record that controls all
| of them. Naively you might think that having each domain say "v=sfp1
| include:spf-control.gladstonefamily.net default=unknown" and then fiddle
| with the record at spf-control.gladstonefamily.net, but this doesn't
| work as you can never get a deny/softdeny out of this.
[Catching up on old mail, sorry if this is now irellevent with new draft]
Couldn't you do:
!ip4:0.0.0.0/0 !ip6:::/0
(both match all possible client addresses).
and then follow by whatever mechanisim you want to allow/softdeny things.
| Also, is there a reason that I have to specify the default= rather than
| just have default=unknown as the default.
if we don't require a default, i fear implementations will assume deny
rather than unknown.
--
[http://pointless.net/] [0x2ECA0975]
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡