On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:01:04 -0400 "John A. Martin" <jam(_at_)jamux(_dot_)com>
wrote:
"Scott" == Scott Kitterman
"Re: Softfail when spf-checking mails from this list, max_dns_mx=5"
Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:33:44 -0400
Scott> I have managed to end up being the defacto lipspf2
Scott> maintainer for Ubuntu. If I can get a patch this week I
Scott> can probably get it into the next release.
Scott> I'm neither a C programmer nor a lipspf2 user, so I need a
Scott> patch I can
Scott> test/package.
Scott> Later I will work on pushing it upstream to Debian.
Surely you have considered this, but what is the rationale for pushing
to distributions SPF implementations that are not known, according to
<http://www.openspf.org/Implementations>, to fully comply with rfc
4408?
Will the package documentation point out that it does or does not
comply fully with the specification or has or has not passed the
current test suite?
BTW don't we want to read "comply" where "conform" is written in
... there are currently two library implementations that are
known to _fully conform_ to the final SPFv1 specification (RFC
4408)
at <http://www.openspf.org/Implementations>?
Libspf2 was was in Debian/Ubuntu long before I was involved. What I am
doing is trying to make it better. Many of the existing implementations
were done before RFC 4408 was published and so to varying degrees the do
not match the RFC.
Libspf2 is additionally a special case. The RFC 4408 processing limits
were modeled on the Libspf2 limits and so while different in some cases, it
doesn't present the same kind of risks associated with other, older, SPF
implementations. If you need a C SPF library, libspf2 is IMO the one to be
using.
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