} -----Original Message-----
} From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de]
} Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:16 AM
} To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
} Subject: [spf-discuss] Re: Another test case for the test suite...
}
} Julian Mehnle wrote:
}
} >> If an SPF-type lookup succeeds, clearly the domain does exist. This
} >> means there have to be zero or more resource records for the TXT-type
} >> lookup. Any other answer is not acceptable IMHO.
}
} > But the TXT-type lookup could accidentally fail due to resource
} > constraints on the authoritative name server or on the resolver.
}
} Or TXT requires TCP while SPF works with UDP.
Can this happen if both records MUST have identical content?
}
} >> If the TXT-type lookup fails, shouldn't a PermError or TempError be
} >> returned?
}
} > Exactly my thought.
}
} I don't see any PermError. A TempError would be a TXT timeout before
} the "good" SPF reply without v=spf1, that can't happen, or can it ?
}
} Frank
}
}
} -------
} 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
-------
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