spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Question about the draft

2004-10-14 11:55:42
That explains it!  Thanks.

I did not notice in the draft that the name is verified.  I have re-read
that part and it is there.

But, maybe your explanation should be added to the example, since this is
not clear.  IMHO.

Thanks,
Guy

-----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 Mark 
Lentczner
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 12:55 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Question about the draft


On Oct 14, 2004, at 8:31 AM, guy wrote:

In sections: B.1 Simple Examples

Please explain why this is true:
      -- sending host 10.0.0.4 fails (reverse IP is not valid)

Is it because the IP address is an RFC-1918 address?
No.  It fails because first the PTR record is looked up:

$ORIGIN 0.0.10.in-addr.arpa.
4           PTR bob.example.com.

Then bob.example.com's A record is looked up:

$ORIGIN example.com.
bob         A   192.0.2.66

Since 192.0.2.66 != 10.0.0.4, there is no validated domain name for 
10.0.0.4.  Therefore, there is no validated domain name that is within 
example.com.  And so, the "ptr" directive doesn't match.  The next 
directive is "-all", which does match, and the IP fails the test.

        - Mark

-------
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