-----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 3:38 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] Re: "/" inside an exists: domain-spec?
Scott Kitterman wrote:
FWIW, the original '/' problem came from a real (if complex)
record
Yes, I recall it, it was really invalid, but the problem wasn't
the slash, it was the invalid delimiter "@" in <macro-expand>.
who's to say what is weird.
If it's no letter, digit, hyphen, dot, or <macro-expand> then
it's weird. The usual dot between labels, not within a label.
Unfortunately that won't help you if you want to get it right.
I've been trying to feed the appropriate changes back into
pySPF and so it gets better as a result of this weirdness.
Does it offer real DNS queries ? Obviously it has q=txt for
redirect= and include:, but you need all relevant query types:
A, MX, PTR, SPF (TYPE99), and TXT.
Yes. Have all those. I don't think I have real IPv6 support where it's
hosted, but haven't investigated yet...
Stuart added SPF (type 99) to pySPF on Friday. I added support for it in
the tool just now. Also patched pySPF to always check for type99 and check
to make sure that SPF and TXT are the same when processing in strict mode.
So I need to make sure that the domain part has a dot in it.
Yes, or it ends with <macro-expand>, because then the required
dot could be hidden in the expansion. RfC 2821 rules, no dot
is bad. I've not checked whether John modified it in 2821bis,
but whatever he does for host = TLD won't affect v=spf1.
Oops. 5 minutes of staring at the code doesn't tell me for sure do I have a
<macro-expand> problem or not. I'll look again tomorrow afternoon.
[check existence of MX etc.]
Exactly how to handle that aspect of it is one thing I am
still thinking about.
Maybe like redirect= and include:, but as warning instead of
error. And another warning if an mx results in more than ten
names - trying to catch cases where that's no problem because
all MX names are somehow covered by a CIDR is unnecessary. Bye
I definitely want to give a warning. I'm just trying to avoid making
changes to pySPF that are only needed for the tool and not for operational
use.
The 10/10/10 processing limit is fully implemented under strict processing
in pySPF, so more than 10 MX is a PermError.
Thanks,
Scott K