In <200512290924(_dot_)36708(_dot_)julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> Julian Mehnle
<julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> writes:
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
mail.globalinkllc.com has no SPF record. However, their weird MX could
happen to a domain that does.
$ host -t mx mail.globalinkllc.com
mail.globalinkllc.com is an alias for redirect.mail.premiumservices.
yahoo.com. redirect.mail.premiumservices.yahoo.com is an alias for
ymb1.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com. ymb1.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com mail is handled
by 0 .
Currently, pyspf gets temperror for an MX mechanism and an MX record
with an empty name like the above.
What should the correct result be? Should the mechanism simply fail
to match? Or permerror?
A "." is not an empty domain name in the DNS, any more than "/" is an
empty path name on a filesystem. Both are names for the root of the
trees.
If you follow the SPF spec, you will find that everything works and
you end up with an empty list of A records. Since the connecting IP
address is not an element of the empty set, it doesn't match.
While 'dig ""' doesn't work, 'dig "."' does, although it says there
are no A records, which is fine. Doing a 'dig "." NS' will give you a
list of the root name servers, since "." is the name of the DNS root.
mail.globalinkllc.com. 600 IN CNAME
redirect.mail.premiumservices.yahoo.com.
redirect.mail.premiumservices.yahoo.com. 6004 IN CNAME
ymb1.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com.
ymb1.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com. 1800 IN MX 0 .
I think it should yield a PermError.
Legalistic reason: "MX 0 ." is illegal because "." is not a valid FQDN, at
least not for what is generally considered an FQDN by the SPF
specification.
The "." is a fully-qualified domain name, just like "/" is an absolute
path name. It is completely valid.
-wayne
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
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