-----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 Frank
Ellermann
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 2:27 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] Re: "/" inside an exists: domain-spec?
Scott Kitterman wrote:
Hi Scott, your tool still hates mx::%%%_/.claranet.de/27 ;-)
It will parse that now.
LOL, maybe we need two SPF validators, "expert mode" for the
weird constructs, and "simple mode" for the real SPF records.
FWIW, the original '/' problem came from a real (if complex) record, so
who's to say what is weird. Some of these problems that have been surfaced
have been as a result of the way I'm parsing the input data and calling
pySPF. Some of them have been due to limitations in the actual pySPF
library. I've been trying to feed the appropriate changes back into pySPF
and so it gets better as a result of this weirdness.
BTW, it does accept mx:invalid but that's _really_ invalid:
domain-spec = macro-string domain-end
domain-end = ( "." toplabel ) / macro-expand
There's no dot in invalid, and it's no <macro-expand>. For a
minimally "valid" invalid I'd need mx:.invalid with a dot.
So I need to make sure that the domain part has a dot in it. Given the
continuing evolution in the TLD space, I don't think it's reasonable to code
in acceptance of only certain TLDs.
It also says "semantically valid" instead of "syntactically":
OK. Your English is definitely better than my German.
For a semantical test I'd expect a warning for mx:test.invalid
(or similar), because "host" test.invalid does not have any MX.
Exactly how to handle that aspect of it is one thing I am still thinking
about.
Scott K