spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] Weird spf record

2005-10-29 10:02:37
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, wayne wrote:

[...] the empty record is accepted.

An empty TXT record is not an SPF record and should result in None.

By empty, I meant "v=spf1".  Your previous post explains it better.
I can test for a record like this:

  if t.startswith('v=spf1 ') or t == 'v=spf1':
    ...

Instead of returning "PermError" for records like "v=spf1-all", I
need to ignore them instead.  But isn't there a case to be made
that the owner of the domain clearly intended to publish an SPF
record, and that a PermError (and resulting DSN that might
wake them up) is the better approach?

Suppose I return PermError when there is exactly one record starting
with "v=spf1" (e.g. "v=spf1-all"), and only when there are 2 or more do 
I throw out the ones missing a space (except "v=spf1" by itself).  What would
that break?

To make it clearer, an example:

example1.com    IN TXT "v=spf1-all"

example2.com    IN TXT "v=spf1-all"
example2.com    IN TXT "v=spf1 -all"

Example1.com would result in PermError (and DSN to sender), whereas
example2.com would result in no error.

-- 
              Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
    Business Management Systems Inc.  Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.

-------
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