-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
| SPF no record | SPF timeout or
| SPF no v=spf1 | RCODE not 0/3
-----------------+----------------+---------------
TXT no record | None | None
TXT no v=spf1 | |
-----------------+----------------+---------------
TXT timeout or | TempError | TempError
RCODE not 0/3 | |
Don't worry, I think that's fine now. What you don't have
is the case "good SPF record intentionally without v=spf1".
Wayne and Alex said that "unidentified garbage in a reply
for SPF" is really not the same as "intentionally no v=spf1".
We can't expect RFC 4408 implementations to identify what's
what, random garbage or good spf2.0, we must assume garbage.
Therefore my idea "good SPF record intentionally without
v=spf1" can't work, only implementations supporting spf2.0
_and_ v=spf1 could use it.
Have I finally got it, and is that related to your original
question ?
Yeah, I think we're coherent now.
The reason for my suggestion to have "SPF = no v=spf1, TXT = timeout/error"
result in TempError can really be summarized as "fail to safety". If the
SPF-type query succeeds without error but the TXT-type one doesn't, it is
very likely that the failing TXT query is just an intermittent problem.
So while the "SPF: spf2.0, TXT: -" case is possible, that case would
always be discovered eventually after an initial TempError. The reverse
is not true, because once a None is assumed, no retries will be performed.
So, in short: fail to safety.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFp/KgwL7PKlBZWjsRAq+MAKCZiS1/JxnKvpkYqiFySaCNLK9yPQCgqQGf
aD3ywy7lx5eKB2U9BkO7KW0=
=VJGD
-----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