spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2006-08-31 11:22:39
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 12:05:00AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:

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.

I guess I'm confused.  There is no difference between a record ending in 
?all and one that just falls off the end.  I agree it's better to be 
explicit for humans, but an SPF library can not distinguish between the two.

That's my point.  For regular SPF libraries there is no difference.

When debugging however, should signal such a record as probably wrong.

"v=spf1"
"v=spf1 ip4:192.0.2.1"
"v=spf1 ip4:192.0.2.1 redirect=example.com -all"

are all records that are technically OK.  But in all three cases, if
a validator is going to explain what is happening, it should raise
questions.

Example:

Warning: your record is empty.  While technically OK, this may not be
what you want.  At the very least you may want to end your record in
"?all" to make your choice explicit.

Warning: the record does not have a catch all at the end.  While there
are circumstances that this may have been done on purpose, it may not
be what you want.  It is highly recommended that you end your record
with "?all", "-all", "~all" or even "+all".

Warning: the record contains a catch all and a redirect modifier. The
syntax is OK but the redirect modifier is never used. This may not be
what you want.

-------
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>