On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
I vaguely remember some talk about processing limits which weren't
exactly defined but UDP limit was reasonable ?
refresh my memory please.
Yes, I decided not to support TCP in pyspf because RFC 4408 (and earlier
drafts) specifically allows implementations to set reasonable limits
on the size of SPF records. The size of a UDP packet is a reasonable limit,
and RFC 4408 recommends keeping spf records below that limit.
For type SPF spf records, I would insist on this. For TXT, however,
there is the complication that unrelated TXT records will bring the
DNS response over the UDP limit. Hence the desire to support TCP.
Even for type SPF records, there may be v=spf1, v=spf3 and spf2.0 records,
which together bring the response over the UDP limit.
--
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