Scott wrote:
BTW, since you almost bring it up... Thank you for the service
you've done me and the implementation I help maintain with your
SPF record. Your domain makes a good test case for processing
limits. A compliant implementation returns PermError, FYI.
Thanks for helping advance the cause,
Scott K
In the spirit of advancing the cause... I think you may be reaching
PermError for the wrong reason.
I couldn't resist giving an spf check against this domain a whirl, and my
implementation returned a PermError immediately, when it encountered the
%{r} macro in the exists mechanism:
exists:%{l};%{i};%{h};%{r}_spf.nextbus.com
According to the latest spec:
The following macro letters are only allowed in "exp" text:
c = SMTP client IP (easily readable format)
r = domain name of host performing the check
t = current timestamp
So my implementation returns PermError when it sees this. Does anyone think
that it shouldn't be doing this?
Cheers,
Allyn
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Kitterman [mailto:spf2(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, 25 August 2005 01:30
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Is SenderID supposed to stumble on garbage
records? (paging Jim Lyon) C&C
I'm curious what makes you think this is anything to do with SPF or even
Sender ID.
BTW, since you almost bring it up... Thank you for the service you've
done me and the implementation I help maintain with your SPF record.
Your domain makes a good test case for processing limits. A compliant
implementation returns PermError, FYI.
Thanks for helping advance the cause,
Scott K
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com