On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 09:09:16AM -0400, Holm, Mark wrote:
There is a possible point for SPF developers here. Perhaps SPF checkers
should offer the option to kick out a flag or add a special header when they
see a +all
Seems like a +all, though formally a legal part of the syntax, is a pretty
clear indication that something is wrong. At the very most charitable, it
should be interpreted as an unknown.
Reminds me of the old hypothetical PDP-11 instruction Mov -(IP) -(IP).
Formally, a legal part of the (highly orthogonal) instruction set, but 1. Not
usually implemented and 2. producing a pretty bad (though amusing) result if
actually executed.
We've been over this a while back. To summarize:
- spf gives the domain owner the option to publish a policy he seems fit
for that domain, rejecting certain policies reduces this option
- it is easy to come up with records to the same effect that don't have
+all in there (using include / redirect / ip4)
- those publishing a +all will in a spf-dominant world suffer from
forgery, and thus end up on rhsbl's pretty soon
Koen
--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta features
SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
pgpcR9cGptjit.pgp
Description: PGP signature