In <200505201928(_dot_)41810(_dot_)bulk(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> Julian Mehnle
<bulk(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> writes:
Wayne Schlitt wrote:
Julian Mehnle writes:
But as a matter of principle, "redirect=" should always work as if the
SPF check started over. IMO, this is what the user expects.
Ok. I still think it is confusing to have example.org having an SPF
record, but when evaluated, it results in "None".
But in that case, "None" is absolutely correct. example.org has not
published an SPF policy. It may have published an SPF _record_ that is
effectively meaningless, but it has not published a policy.
Ok, lets make this more explicit:
example.org. TXT "v=spf1 mx -exists:%{ir}.dnsbl.org redirect=example.com"
A 192.2.0.1
example.com. A 192.2.1.1
No, it is my opinion that example.org *has* published a sender policy
and that this sender policy can return "Pass" (mx match) "Fail"
(exists match) or "None" (redirect).
However, to back up a second, Stuart just posted that he thinks that
include and redirect already defined to act the same. I would like to
confirm that you are saying that they don't.
-wayne