-----Original Message-----
From: Allyn Wade [mailto:allyn(_dot_)wade(_at_)cp(_dot_)net]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 4:44 AM
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
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
Thanks. I filed a bug on sourceforge to make sure I don't forget to fix
that one.
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1274645&group_id=13
9894&atid=744815
Scott
-------
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