RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
> [mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of
> Matthew(_dot_)van(_dot_)Eerde(_at_)hbinc(_dot_)com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 2:18 PM
> To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
> Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Some thoughts about spam and SPF
>
>
> Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Except, I think their SPF record in broken.
> > ...
> > dnsmadeeasy.com.    1800    TXT     "v=spf1 ip4:63.219.151.0/24
> a mx include:tiggee.com -all"
>
> (rephrase)
> ... and tiggee.com has no SPF record
> (/rephrase)
>
> Is there a standard way to interpret a null include: result?
>
>
> From http://spf.pobox.com/spf-draft-200406.txt paragraph 4.2
   This mechanism [include] matches when the inner, included query result
returns
   a pass, and doesn't match when the result is fail, softfail, or
   neutral.  However, if the new query returns none, error, or unknown,
   then processing of the entire SPF query stops immediately and
   returns the error result.

If I interpret that correctly, attempting to retrieve a non-existant record
will reliably get you an error result.

Scott Kitterman