spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] Re: [spf-devel] Re: Another test case for the test suite...

2007-01-09 22:37:36
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 05:49:45 +0100 Alex van den Bogaerdt 
<alex(_at_)ergens(_dot_)op(_dot_)het(_dot_)net> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 11:25:27PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:

The reason the spec says to use the non-error response if you get an 
error for 
one RR type and a non-error for the other RR type is that some DNS 
servers 
will never answer for unknown RR Types.  So these DNS servers will 
always 
return a timeout (which is an error) for type SPF.

Scott,

Are you saying here you can point to RFC4408 and justify returning
"None" in the discussed case where looking for SPF does not return
an error, and looking for TXT does?


I can understand your justification when SPF times out and TXT does not,
but we're discussing the opposite?

Yes, but as Guy just posted, RFC 4408 doesn't care which way it happens.

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/?list_id=735

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