Scott Kitterman wrote:
I'm surprised this has caused so much traffic. I think that this
whole issue is reasonably clear from an SPF perspective...
Don't get me wrong, but I think you missed the point. HELO museum
(or similar) triggered the thread, but the point is a single label
<target-name> after _any_ macro expansion, not only %{h}, it can be
anything, e.g. %{l}
The topic "is HELO museum an SMTP syntax error" is also interesting,
and in fact discussed on the SMTP list [starting again Wednesday,
after a moratorium trying to stop "two posters" from getting into
a flamewar - okay, one of the two is me, the other is the author :-]
I don't recall which RFC (I'm pretty sure it's the same one that
says no all numeric TLDs), but applications are specifically
discouraged from hardwiring the current list of actual TLDs
Yes, 3696, same author, said that 3696 might be wrong if it's not
compatible with 2821, I said both are right, etc., that will be
solved in 2821bis and/or 3696bis, not directly a SPF problem, we
don't support a "dotless" <domain-spec> because it's too complex
for the syntax.
But a "dotless" <target-name> is something that you can get when
normally evaluating perfectly harmless SPF records "v=spf1 a:%{L}"
Anyone actually wanting to put a TLD in an SPF record would be
well advised to include the trailing dot.
Doesn't help, "a:museum" and "a:museum." are both syntax errors,
they get a PermError. OTOH a:%{L} might even work for a domain
where all local parts "happen" to be existing FQDNs.
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