Re: Use of New Mask Mechanism
2005-03-26 13:08:56
At 02:45 PM 3/26/2005 -0500, Radu wrote:
David MacQuigg wrote:
At 01:33 PM 3/26/2005 -0500, Radu wrote:
David MacQuigg wrote:
At 11:53 AM 3/26/2005 -0500, Radu wrote:
Once again, the mask would not work as a mechanism (unless it was in
include, like Frank mentioned), because each mechanism can return a
match. the mask modifiers can return a match only after *all of them*
have been checked against the IP. Think of a mask like m=65/6 m=214/6.
For senders in the 214 net, your proposed -!ip4 mechanism would
wrongfully declare the 214 sources as "FAIL".
Oops. I thought I understood these masks, but I missed it. OK, so
what this "mask" mechanism really says is, the IP address must match
one or another mask range AND match at least one of the subsequent mechanisms.
Almost :)
Please, let's never call it a mechanism again, to avoid confusion. It
really is a *modifier* !!! Actually a *set of modifiers* are only
meaningful together. Individually, each mask modifier doesn't mean
anything, because it doesn't tell enough to allow the checker to stop
evaluating.
Good point. It's a modifier, not a mechanism.
And what it really says is: Somewhere in the included/redirected
records, there are more IP mechanisms that match some of the IPs in the
mask range. It's a "summary" of the remaining records, if you wish. The
summary includes more IPs than the records themselves, but it serves
well to tell authoritatively what IPs *aren't* in the subsequent
includes. It also serves to tell you what the all at the very end of the
record chain says the to do with unmatching IPs ("fail", "softfail",
etc), so that you don't need to scan the whole chain to find out what
the domain owner wants you to do.
Somehow I/we need to find a description of this that would be very
clear, so that implementers of SPF checkers know what to do. It is
clearly a description/language problem because you're not alone getting
a grasp on its meaning.
How about
record = version [mask] terms *SP
version = "v=spf1"
mask = *( 1*SP m= ipblock )
After processing the mask, if there is any match, proceed with the terms
as usual. If there is no match, skip processing any terms except 'all',
and don't call for any remainder of a truncated record.
Thats good, except the earliest the mask can be evaluated is after the
A/MX/exists mechanisms. For instance, an exists:{i}.domain.com cannot
be covered by a mask. The only reason why a compiler might leave
a/mx/exists mechanisms in the compiled record is if they contain macros
that cannot be expanded at compile time (such as i, l, and possibly s).
I was planning on worrying about truncated records. I was going to assume
that the checker cannot receive a truncated record, because the resolver
library takes care of using TCP as necessary. In any case, for compiled
records this should only happen if the compiler screwed up and created a
record that is cannot fit in a UDP packet. I would treat that as a bug
that must be fixed, as opposed to a condition that must be handled by the
checkers.
So, since I'm assuming that the checker receives the entire record, the
masks could be evaluated when the first include/redirect mechanism is
encountered. This would mean that the mask does not need to cover IP
addresses in the top record, as they are free to check.
Now I'm confused. If the reason for masks is *not* to avoid sending
multiple packets, and *only* to avoid processing mechanisms that require
another lookup, why do we need these lookups on the client side? Why can't
the compiler do whatever lookups the client would do, and make the clients
job as simple as possible?
-- Dave
************************************************************ *
* David MacQuigg, PhD email: dmquigg-spf at yahoo.com * *
* IC Design Engineer phone: USA 520-721-4583 * * *
* Analog Design Methodologies * * *
* 9320 East Mikelyn Lane * * *
* VRS Consulting, P.C. Tucson, Arizona 85710 *
************************************************************ *
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Re: DNS load research, (continued)
- Use of New Mask Mechanism, David MacQuigg
- Re: Use of New Mask Mechanism, Radu Hociung
- Re: Use of New Mask Mechanism, Radu Hociung
- Re: Use of New Mask Mechanism, David MacQuigg
- Re: Use of New Mask Mechanism, David MacQuigg
- Re: Use of New Mask Mechanism, Radu Hociung
- Re: Use of New Mask Mechanism, David MacQuigg
- Re: Use of New Mask Mechanism, Radu Hociung
- Re: Use of New Mask Mechanism,
David MacQuigg <=
- Re: Use of New Mask Mechanism, Radu Hociung
- Re: Use of New Mask Mechanism, David MacQuigg
- Re: Use of New Mask Mechanism, Radu Hociung
- Need for Complexity in SPF Records, David MacQuigg
- Re: Need for Complexity in SPF Records, Radu Hociung
- Re: Need for Complexity in SPF Records, David MacQuigg
- Re: Use of New Mask Mechanism, Andy Bakun
- Re: Use of New Mask Mechanism, Radu Hociung
- Re: Use of New Mask Mechanism, Frank Ellermann
- Re: Re: Use of New Mask Mechanism, Radu Hociung
|
|
|