spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2007-01-10 08:27:07
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:

1) only TXT is looked up, and this results in return code 0 or 3.
2) only SPF is looked up, and this results in return code 0 or 3.
3) both RR are looked up, and both return the same content (code 0 or 3).
4) both RR are looked up, and one results in a timeout or error.
5) only TXT is looked up, and this results in a timeout or an error.
6) only SPF is looked up, and this results in a timeout or an error.
7) both RR are looked up, and they deliver different content.

What should be done in scenario (7) ?  Only process the SPF type RR,
not even noticing the different TXT type RR content, pretending we
didn't notice the difference, or return PermError?
There's something to say for all three...

Did I miss a possible scenario?

Yes, as you note, both TempError and None are valid results.  You get
to choose whether you are looking at SPF, TXT, or BOTH.  The fact
that you have already looked at the other type is irrelevant.  So
you changed your mind.  So pick one.  Either result is valid.  I prefer
TempError, because None doesn't help me reject spam, but None is perfectly
valid also.

-- 
              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