In
<1098298543(_dot_)32549(_dot_)117(_dot_)camel(_at_)antitrust(_dot_)6o4(_dot_)ca>
James Couzens <jcouzens(_at_)6o4(_dot_)ca> writes:
On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 10:49, Commerco WebMaster wrote:
An event last week started me thinking about recursion in redirect=
statements.
I do not recall reading this in the spec itself, so I thought I would bring
it up here. Might it be a good idea to explicitly define and limit the
number of levels of recursion that a checker of SPF records must go through
before failing as part of the SPF specification?
Its very blatantly stated!
Section 5.2:
Note: during recursion into an Include mechanism, explanations do not
propagate out. But during execution of a Redirect modifier, the
explanation string from the target of the redirect is used.
And similar wording is in the oldest SPF spec I have (Nov 2003).
I know of no spf implementation that doesn't already follow the SPF
spec and deal with the situation you describe.
In the last couple of weeks there have been quite a few posts about
far more subtle process limit problems. libspf2 has dealt with these
more subtle problems for many months.
-wayne