spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] Re: spam.co.nz

2006-08-30 11:17:18
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 05:56:42PM +0000, Julian Mehnle wrote:

Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
Not resulting in a permerror but wrong nevertheless is the absence of a
catch-all (for instance -all) after include. 

How is a missing catch-all "all" wrong?  It isn't.  After the last 
mechanism has failed to match, and if there is no "redirect=" modifier,
a default "?all" is assumed.  See section 4.7 of the SPF spec.

See RFC 4408 section 1.2, RFC 2119 section 3.  Unless there are
valid reasons in particular circumstances, etc. yada yada, it is
wrong to not have a catch all (or a "redirect").

The other way around: an example without such a catch all but also
without mentioning the special status, circumstances, implications
and considerations is wrong.

For SPF record testers, I think it is quite all right to flag a
record without "all" or "redirect" as being wrong.  People that
know the ins and outs may still choose to ignore the advice.

-- 
alex

-------
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>