-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 2:38 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
It doesn't solve the problem of (broken but common) DNS
servers that don't respond when queried for a type99 -
resulting in timeout.
That's an "implementation detail", something that has to
be hidden by pretending that it's no problem as good as
possible. For the first query it's unavoidable, so what
can be done about further queries ?
You mentioned that almost every SPF implementation will
have its own kind of a cache. Can it make up some "do
not try -q=spf" entries for the relevant domains ? Bye
Personally, I think it's just an editorial cleanup issue. When Wayne wrote:
If the DNS lookup returns a server failure (RCODE 2), or other error (RCODE
other than 0 or 3), or the query times out, check_host() exits immediately
with the result "TempError" in paragraph 4.4
I believe that some text was inadvertently omitted. I think what he meant
was:
If the DNS lookup returns a server failure (RCODE 2), or other error (RCODE
other than 0 or 3), or the query times out for all RR types check_host()
will query, check_host() exits immediately with the result "TempError"
I expect that's what he meant ;).
Scott K