On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Julian Mehnle wrote:
| If at least one record is returned by the SPF-type look-up, no
| TXT-type look-up is performed (so nothing can go wrong with the
| TXT-type look-up in the first place).
|
| However, if the SPF-type look-up succeeds and returns 0 records, and
| the following TXT-type look-up errors or times out, then Mail::SPF
| throws a TempError even though it shouldn't.
I fixed this tiny bug already. Because it is so tiny, I won't make
another release immediately just for that.
...
While I'm sure this is what the spec requires, I'm no longer sure this is a
sensible behavior. Which means that there is probably a bug in the spec.
Any comments?
Yes. You are condemning Mail::SPF for impure motives. The external
behaviour (of throwing TempError) is perfectly all right by the spec.
This is because you all allowed to lookup only TXT records. If you
lookup only TXT records, and get an error, you should throw TempError.
So TempError is a perfectly valid result for that situation. The fact
that you feel the internal motivation for the result is wrong (since you
had already looked to type SPF records), doesn't make the result invalid.
Pyspf *deliberately* return TempError in that situation. Whether you
feel your program returns TempError for a bad reason, or whether
I feel my program returns TempError for a good reason is a subjective
judgement. Whether the result is valid or invalid is an objective
determination. The TempError result is valid, and allowed by the spec.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
-------
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/?list_id=735