-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Wayne Schlitt wrote:
Sadly, I think you are right, this is what RFC4408 requires *IF* you
choose to go ahead and check both RR types.
While it isn't a huge problem, I think this will give a lot of bogus
"None" results which will cause confusion.
Besides the obvious "don't query type99 records" (at least not by
default),
Or you could consciously violate the spec and do what I described in the
first table in my previous mail.
Strike that from the records. I never said that. I wouldn't even think
about it. Ever! Promised.
(Seriously, Mail::SPF will of course stay RFC compliant. As for the
upcoming Mail::SPF::BlackMagic, that one might offer an option to change
that behavior.)
another thing to do would be to not check type99 records
unless you get no valid SPFv1 TXT records. There is nothing in
RFC4408 that says that an implementation has to always consisently
check both. It appears to be quite legal and probably much better if
you used the following logic:
query for TXT records
if there aren't any valid SPFv1 records, then query for type99
proceed with record selection as per section 4.5
Yes, this is technically doing record selection twice, but that isn't
ruled out by RFC4408.
Interestingly, this is exactly the reverse of what Mail::SPF does, which
is:
query for SPF-type records
if there aren't any valid SPFv1 records, then query for TXT-type
proceed with record selection as per section 4.5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFpQlEwL7PKlBZWjsRAsfFAJsFWL5RsYdOzpy+95c+CDMap6MPwwCbBiah
QVW8mw5yOKD58WzoPnGEKTg=
=aHGy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
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