Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
[I-D.klensin-rfc2821bis-01 section 2.3.5 "Domain Names"]
based on that, I might be convinced that "A:%{h}" should
not match for "HELO museum"
match (with appropriate IP) for "HELO museum."
Apparently Scott also supports this approach. His reason
was to protect the DNS root servers and SPF checkers from
bogus queries for "oemcomputer" (no dot).
It's a compromise not directly related to anything I find
in the SPF spec., but in practice it makes sense.
Do we need that as erratum (or wannabe-erratum) wrt the
interpretation of a <target-name> when it only contains
a single label ?
What I have in mind is this:
1: MAIL FROM:<user(_at_)test>
2: MAIL FROM:<user(_at_)test(_dot_)>
test. IN SPF "v=spf1 a:%{o}%{d}%{d} -all"
Is that testtestest (1) and test.test.test.test. (2), and
if yes, is it "our" problem to be addressed in the spec.,
and while that's not the case in an erratum ? Or should
we say WTF, getting trailing dots right is the problem of
the sender, and using %{o}%{d}%{d} is anyway a bad idea ?
Should we better propose "v=spf1 ptr -all" as typical
HELO policy ?
Only if you want to verify that the domain owner also
controls the IP address. This is in general true for
large companies, but almost never true for small
companies and individuals.
Okay, forget my stupid question. It's not the business
of a sender policy to express its support for a DNSOP I-D.
Frank
-------
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