On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, Scott Kitterman wrote:
If I understand you, records with no whitespace (other than perhaps the
empty record) should be ignored instead.
Have you changed something? The pySPF version I have up on the validator
processes these correctly...
"v=spf1" - valid record (I think that's right)
Yes, it is equivalent to "v=spf1 ?all"
"v=spf1" "mx" "ptr" "mx:servermail.portoeditora.pt"
"mx:smtponi.portoeditora.pt" "mx:smtppt.portoeditora.pt"
"mx:newsletters.portoeditora.pt" "ip4:213.58.193.36" "ip4:194.65.106.36"
"-all" - No valid SPF record identified
Yes, I changed dns_spf to ignore v=spf1 not followed by space or end
of string. The isSPF(txt) function does the test. We may want to
extend this in "relaxed" mode to report a permerror when there is
exactly one v=spf1 record followed by a non-space.
I added test cases to testspf.py.
--
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