spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos

2005-08-26 15:09:07
In <00de01c5aa89$8a082c00$6401a8c0(_at_)hdev1> "Hector Santos" 
<spf-discuss(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com> writes:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "wayne" <wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net>

domain_a:  v=spf1 ?include:domain_b -all
domain_b:  v=spf1 -ip4:1.2.3.4 +all

Now suppose the SENDER IP is 1.2.3.4 so that there is a match in the policy.

Lets follow the PREFIX:

domain_a:  prefix=+  default
domain_a:  ?include:domain_b  prefix is now ?
    domain_b:  prefix=+  default
    domain_b:  -ip4 prefix is now -
        ip match -> return prefix=-

when the recursive call returns, what is the result?

    prefix=-  from hard ip4 match? or
    prefix=?  from hard ?include result?

Neither of those are correct.  The result is prefix=- from the -all.

So the first one is correct which is what I concluded in my message.

You said that match was from the ip4 match, I said it was from the
-all, I don't think these are the same.


It acts like
'if (eval(target) == Pass ) return prefix;'.

Right, which means MATCHING can only return PASS or FAIL and nothing else for 
a INCLUDE.  I had another example that illustrated that, change domain_b to:

    domain_b:  v=spf1 ?ip4:1.2.3.4 +all

and there is a MATCH for the ?ip4. 

What is the result for this HARD NEUTRAL?

It is the same as the first, it is a Fail due to matching on the
-all.  The included record does not return Pass, therefore the
include: doesn't match, therefore it proceeds to the -all.


-wayne

-------
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