Ah come on Julian.
The RESULT was a SOFTFAIL because that was the FINAL directive for this
particular record. So of course, you just wasted your time looking for
specifics. Geez, what the hell is going on here?
Please don't try to push the issue on me. I am not the one that screwed
this up creating PERMERRORS for classic SPF setups. You are the guys that
came up with artificial SWAG limit. Not me. I'm not the one who suddenly
has a problem with the largest computer software company in the world and
who knows who else for no other reason but for this artificial
"pie-in-the-sky" limit.
So please, this is your (SPF-Council) issue. Not Mine.
Just don't expect working Classic SPF systems to change for this specific
nonsense Artificial Limit. Its nonsense. The next time a critical change
is made, you should run it by the list of vendors that are on your web site.
Not just rely on the mailing list.
PS: Is it possible for you to unsubscribe this
support(_at_)etelecom(_dot_)com(_dot_)au
address?
---
HLS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Mehnle" <julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net>
Newsgroups: spf.-.sender.policy.framework.discussion
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 12:02 PM
Subject: [spf-discuss] Re: PermError: Too many DNS lookups at Microsoft.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hector Santos wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
I think you are still using the old (pre-MARID/2004) recursion
limits. The current approach is a little different:
I see. But this is one of those things that was changed without much
insight to the repercussions. :-)
You see it as PERMERROR. Classic SPF implementations sees it as a
SOFTFAIL.
I checked the various drafts for what they had to say about processing
limits:
draft-mengwong-spf.02.9.4: "unknown" (AKA "PermError")
draft-mengwong-spf-{00,01}: "unknown" (AKA "PermError")
spf-draft-200406: "unknown" (AKA "PermError")
draft-lentczner-spf-00: "PermError" ("TempError" for timeouts)
draft-schlitt-spf-classic-{00-02}: "PermError" ("TempError" for timeouts)
rfc4408: "PermError" ("TempError" for timeouts)
I know of no draft that declares a violation of the processing limits a
"SoftFail". I know of no implementation (possibly besides yours), either,
that generates a "SoftFail" in this situation.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEXhovwL7PKlBZWjsRAllGAJ97Lz7misHg+EmFVyBvvClmegyfgACfZW2Y
xsRMBG33xsI1UCceffIXNk4=
=S7cJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
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
-------
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