spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] Am I wrong here?

2006-05-19 04:52:47
On 05/19/2006 07:22, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On 05/19/2006 05:27, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:12:04PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
The version on my validator is fixed.  I also committed it to the
sourceforge library for pyspf.  While I was in there I also changed it
to allow a trailing dot in the domain name, changed Type TXT and SPF
not identical to a warning instead of an error, and updated internal
references to RFC 4408.

Looking good.  Terrence Way is also looking at it; I notified him that
you have done some work already.

If he looks at it, he will find that Stuart and I have evolved pySPF
substantailly since his last release.  Unless there are some other bugs, I
think that for the functions it implements (pySPF does not support IPv6) it
is almost fully RFC 4408 compliant when run in 'strict' mode.

The one area where it is by design not compliant is the change from
error/unknown -> temperror/permerror.  That change would have impacted the
programs that call it.

AFAIK, Terrence's last version was 1.6.  In my view the version on the
validator is a good version 1.7 release candidate.  We should also, at some
point do a 2.0 that supports the new result semantics.

Slight correction there...

There are two versions of pyspf up on Stuarts pymilter site at sourceforge.  
The one in the pymilter package uses the old semantics.  The one in the 
separate pyspf CVS tree uses the new (that's the one I use on the validator).

Sorry, shouldn't type before coffee.

Scott K

-------
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