-----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 wayne
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 9:27 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Validator Testing Request
In <NGBBLEIJOEEEBMEIAPBKKEEOIMAA(_dot_)scott(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> Scott
Kitterman <spf2(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> writes:
I've been doing what testing I could and I think that the third
test on my
validator page, "Test an SPF record":
http://www.kitterman.com/spf/validate.html
You have a note about macros in both your second and your third test.
will work properly with all the SPF record macros, but since I don't have
any macros in my records, it's difficult for me to test
thoroughly. If any
of you who have macros in your SPF records would take a moment
to try it out
and let me know what you find, I'd appreciate it.
I can send you a (long) list of all the SPF records in the wild that
use macros.
I'm tempted to take off the note that says it doesn't support macros, but
I'd appreciate some additional testing first.
I just my record, and it said:
Results - ambiguous SPF Ambiguity Warning: No A records found for:
_h.1.2.3.4._l.test._o.schlitt.net._i.1.2.3.4._spf.schlitt.net
The message is somewhat redundant, and the HELO value was supposed to
be "test.schlitt.net", but your check gave it as "1.2.3.4".
I'm not sure why the results would be ambiguous anyway.
-wayne
Interesting. Thanks.
The problem with me testing records with macros in them is I can't tell
which IP addresses are supposed to match as a rule.
I added a warning for use in the validator for cases where the result isn't
an error, but probably isn't what the publisher intended. An examples are
mx:mail.example.com where mail.example.com is the MX for example.com, but
has no MX records itself.
I didn't think about things like exists when I added it. I'll look into the
HELO question too.
Ah, live and learn.
Scott K