Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
sky.com. 1800 IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:87.86.189.0/25
include:aspmx.googlemail.com ~all
a:im3.sky.com mx:sky.com ~all"
[...]
Sky's SPF policy looks syntactically valid, although I can
imagine that some poorly written implementations barf on
seeing "all" twice.
"It is used as the rightmost mechanism in a record" is good
enough for a warning - at the moment Scott's validator does
not flag sky.com's record as suspicious.
RFC 4408 says 'Mechanisms after "all" will never be tested',
and so "poorly written" is IMO actually a case of "broken" -
admittedly a plausible bug if it exists in the wild.
That is, technically speaking, not Sky's problem.
Yes, they are free to publish two "all" for obscure reasons,
but it is very likely not what they really want.
Frank
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=2183229&id_secret=91498880-bce45b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com