-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Wayne Schlitt wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
a: with an IP address is a syntax error isn't it?
In the schlitt-spf-classic I-Ds, yes, it is syntax error.
Syntactically, 69.64.33.132 is a valid domain name. The record as a
whole is syntactically and semantically correct, although it probably
doesn't mean what the publisher meant. Since there is no "132"
top-level domain, "a:69.64.33.132" will yield a lookup result of
RCODE 3, thus such an "a" mechanism will simply not match, as per the
last paragraph of the introduction of section 5 in the specification.
The TLDs in SPF records are now restricted in the same way that the
TLDs are restricted in URLs and such.
You're right. What a pity. IMO we (i.e. the specification, record
validators, implementations) should warn all we can about "a:n.n.n.n", but
we shouldn't prevent it. There may be domain name spaces that do use
numerical TLDs, and there is little reason to exclude them from using SPF.
But this is probably not a battle that's worth fighting against the
namedroppers folks.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCgfzVwL7PKlBZWjsRAk53AJ9tY0Zw6QIRO7mglfmgvhliTT6gpQCg2y/r
JUIjcpjlq88PjBh9WfbB9Yc=
=XPC/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----