Mailing List Archive by Gossamer Threads http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/ en-us (c) Gossamer Threads Inc. All rights reserved. 20 Jul 2008 04:22:13 -0800 120 75 23 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/ http://www.gossamer-threads.com/images/lists/rss_logo.jpg Dear OM ,  .Herewith inclosed, some interestingQSL's and photos of the international station 4U1ITU and from the Belgian station  ON4UB at 15 Jul 2008 11:09:13 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33911 > It has both: > SPF records are primarily published in DNS as TXT records. The TXT records > found for your domain are: > v=spf1 ip4:24.248.44.156 01 Jul 2008 07:48:23 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33896 On Tuesday 01 July 2008 07:08, Eddy Minet wrote: > Hi, > > > > Here are last changes made in the library : > > > > - Integrates Alphons van der Heijde 01 Jul 2008 07:11:21 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33895 Hi, Here are last changes made in the library : - Integrates Alphons van der Heijden .NET resolver to execute DNS queries. So windows api is n 01 Jul 2008 04:08:09 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33894 On Monday 30 June 2008 12:09, Eddy Minet wrote: > Frank wrote : > > Sorry, I did not get that. I found a page written by somebody > > with the same S 30 Jun 2008 09:22:22 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33893 Frank wrote : > Sorry, I did not get that. I found a page written by somebody > with the same SPF .net problem: > <http://www.codeproject.com/KB/lib 30 Jun 2008 09:09:57 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33892 Eddy Minet wrote: > All call to DnsQuery seem to check the DnsValidateName rules. Sorry, I did not get that. I found a page written by somebody wit 30 Jun 2008 08:47:32 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33891 > The real thing is function "DnsQuery", and if that allows in > essence any octet you're done. But I fear that none of the > three variants (ANSI, U 30 Jun 2008 07:28:37 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33887 Eddy Minet wrote: > you can read more here : > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms682032(VS.85).aspx Thanks. If I get this right you could s 30 Jun 2008 07:06:18 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33886 I had a look on dig executable and dll files. It works great and returns NXDOMAIN for 'dig foo:bar/baz.example.com'. Because the dlls are not .NET as 30 Jun 2008 04:48:09 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33885 Eddy Minet wrote: > All this chars are considered as 'invalid': { | } ~ [ \ ] ^ ' > : ; < = > ? @ ! " # $ % ^ ` ( ) + / , and * if not in first place 30 Jun 2008 02:22:25 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33884 Frank Ellermann wrote: > You could wrap it to get the required escaping if > that works: foo\:bar\/baz.example.com Does not work. All this c 30 Jun 2008 01:10:26 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33883 description: Macro mania comment: >- DNS supports any octet. SPF directly supports printable ASCII and space, indirectly any octet, but no dots wi 28 Jun 2008 09:50:07 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33882 Eddy Minet wrote: > the 4 following tests will fail : > - a-colon-domain > - a-colon-domain-ip4mapped > - mx-colon-domain > - mx-colon-domain-ip4mapp 28 Jun 2008 07:35:30 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33881 After many changes made, many bugs corrected and many code lines added, the library finally pass all the Test Suite scenarios. 166 tests get the 27 Jun 2008 02:17:37 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33880 Eddy Minet wrote: > The thing was that upper case macro wasn't url escaped. Oops, didn't see it when I read your first message, nice. Maybe a bit t 26 Jun 2008 12:25:20 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33877 Please forget mail previous question about 'invalid-domain-long-via-macro'. The thing was that upper case macro wasn't url escaped. Macro expand 26 Jun 2008 09:36:29 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33876 I have a problem with the following test in the test suite : invalid-domain-long-via-macro: description: >- target-name that is a vali 26 Jun 2008 03:54:45 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33875 On Wednesday 25 June 2008 03:22, Eddy Minet wrote: > Hi all, > > > > InterPC.SPF is a .NET library that has just been added to the openspf.org > imple 25 Jun 2008 04:59:54 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33874 Eddy Minet wrote: > don't have time to develop a full compliant Yaml library. After some googling, there might be a working Python parser, and a wor 25 Jun 2008 01:18:30 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33873 Hi all, InterPC.SPF is a .NET library that has just been added to the openspf.org implementations page. In order to submit it to the Yaml test su 25 Jun 2008 00:22:22 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33872 On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:49:54 -0600 Boyd Lynn Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com> wrote: >On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On Monday 23 June 2008 24 Jun 2008 05:09:34 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33864 On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Monday 23 June 2008 20:53, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Scott Kitterman wrote: > 24 Jun 2008 04:49:54 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33863 On Monday 23 June 2008 20:53, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > The new version can be found at: > > > > http: 23 Jun 2008 19:48:02 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33860 On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Scott Kitterman wrote: > The new version can be found at: > > http://www.openspf.org/blobs/pypolicyd-spf-0.7.tar.gz The package 23 Jun 2008 17:53:54 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33857 The new version can be found at: http://www.openspf.org/blobs/pypolicyd-spf-0.7.tar.gz Significant changes include: + Reject option for Mail From 23 Jun 2008 06:19:29 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33849 On a final note (and just for the record), here is the GDB output required to prove this was the issue: (gdb) bt #0 0x00bab7a2 in _dl_sysinfo_int80 10 Jun 2008 00:32:23 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33793 I believe I've tracked down the issue. It has to do with SPF_dns_resolv_lookup(), and where it calls res_nquery(). Basically res_nquery() is returni 10 Jun 2008 00:13:12 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33791 If you execute the attached code right now (Tuesday, 12:30am) you'll be able to reproduce the crash. Note that these spammer domains disappear often, 09 Jun 2008 22:39:23 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33790 Eugene Crosser wrote: > Ladar Levison wrote: > >>>> I'm seeing a number of segfaults. I believe the issue is that >>>> libreplace > [...] >> The issu 09 May 2008 12:12:38 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33744 On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 10:44:46AM -0500, Ladar Levison wrote: > > I'm seeing a number of segfaults. I believe the issue is that libreplace is > cal 09 May 2008 01:27:07 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33752 Ladar Levison wrote: >>> I'm seeing a number of segfaults. I believe the issue is that >>> libreplace [...] > The issue appears to occur sporadicall 09 May 2008 01:05:57 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33743 Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Wed, 07 May 2008 10:44:46 -0500 Ladar Levison <ladar@lavabit.com> wrote: > >> I'm seeing a number of segfaults. I belie 08 May 2008 22:18:08 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33741 On Wed, 07 May 2008 10:44:46 -0500 Ladar Levison <ladar@lavabit.com> wrote: > >I'm seeing a number of segfaults. I believe the issue is that libreplac 08 May 2008 09:41:17 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33736 I'm seeing a number of segfaults. I believe the issue is that libreplace is calling __dn_skipname with identical pointers, but I can't seem to narrow 07 May 2008 08:44:46 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33729 Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Friday 25 April 2008 11:47, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > >> Is there a repository where one can browse for a C function and 26 Apr 2008 00:02:48 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33692 On Friday 25 April 2008 11:47, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > Is there a repository where one can browse for a C function and/or the > test suite that yo 25 Apr 2008 09:29:20 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33688 Frank Ellermann wrote on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:52:09 +0200: > I don't see why MTAs should suddenly start to be smart. They > get an address with a <quo 25 Apr 2008 08:47:43 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33687 Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > You could argue that a sender (who controls valid localparts) > should avoid such quoted localparts to avoid any inconsist 14 Apr 2008 16:39:20 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33627 On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Julian Mehnle wrote: > > > SPF implementations aren't supposed to perform quote removal > > in e-mail 14 Apr 2008 14:59:50 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33626 Julian Mehnle wrote: > SPF implementations aren't supposed to perform quote removal > in e-mail addresses or localparts. I don't believe it, we disc 14 Apr 2008 14:12:55 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33625 Julian Mehnle wrote: > There's a difference between the _value_ of the localpart > in a RFC 2821 e-mail address and its _representation_ in > the e- 14 Apr 2008 13:52:09 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33624 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Julian Mehnle wrote: > > You cannot expect SPF implemen 14 Apr 2008 12:35:06 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33623 On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Julian Mehnle wrote: > > You could argue that %{l}@%{d} (in an exp, for example) should be a > > syntactically valid email. And 14 Apr 2008 12:26:53 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33622 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Hi, does the SPF test suite 14 Apr 2008 11:48:32 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33621 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Frank Ellermann wrote: > Hi, does the SPF test suite cover oddities like > MAIL FROM:<"\b\a\c\k\s\l\a\s 14 Apr 2008 11:42:02 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33620 On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Hi, does the SPF test suite cover oddities like > MAIL FROM:<"\b\a\c\k\s\l\a\s\h"@test.example"> ? > > 14 Apr 2008 08:26:41 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33619 Hi, does the SPF test suite cover oddities like MAIL FROM:<"\b\a\c\k\s\l\a\s\h"@test.example"> ? In the SPF I18N entry of the FAQ I claim that implem 14 Apr 2008 00:14:48 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33614 On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > Would it make sense to cache a domain-name+spf-record-content key, in > order to avoid sending the sa 08 Apr 2008 20:11:15 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33592 Stuart D. Gathman wrote: >> >> I was considering posting an auto-note to postmaster in case >> >> of PermError in addition to a DSN, but PermError fro 07 Apr 2008 23:09:45 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33591 On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote: > > For the test suite allowing both is simple. But insisting on > > "whatever you do be consistent" in 07 Apr 2008 09:14:01 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33576 On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > >> I was considering posting an auto-note to pos 07 Apr 2008 09:00:37 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33575 Frank Ellermann wrote: > Stuart D. Gathman wrote: >> I was considering posting an auto-note to postmaster in case >> of PermError in addition to a DSN 07 Apr 2008 00:55:17 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33572 Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote: > I know I voted for PermError, but I assumed I was in the > minority. Oops, sorry, I missed that. In the last round sinc 07 Apr 2008 00:36:19 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33571 On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > > > You had me convinced that PermError was better than nomatch. > > LOL, for 06 Apr 2008 23:38:24 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33569 Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > You had me convinced that PermError was better than nomatch. LOL, for the old 3:2 "rough" consensus I could claim that it 06 Apr 2008 22:33:23 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33568 On Sun, 6 Apr 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > PermError => add note that this is about a syntactically invalid > > <target-name> for DN 06 Apr 2008 19:39:23 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33566 On Sunday 06 April 2008 16:31:20 Michael Breuer wrote: > Ok, maybe I'm brain dead... just tried installing libspf2 1.2.5 and > spfmilter 1.0.8 on a Fe 06 Apr 2008 13:48:35 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33564 Ok, maybe I'm brain dead... just tried installing libspf2 1.2.5 and spfmilter 1.0.8 on a Fedora 8 machine. libspf2 builds and installs OK. When I tr 06 Apr 2008 13:31:20 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33563 > I think I can come up with a proposal for the three choices: > PermError => add note that this is about a syntactically invalid > <tar 05 Apr 2008 15:51:39 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33561 Julian Mehnle wrote: > I think we should make decisions in this order. The RFC 4408 test > suite depends solely on how we interpret RFC 4408 as it i 28 Mar 2008 13:44:59 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33521 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Frank Ellermann wrote: > Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > > I was for TempError myself. But no match is ok. 28 Mar 2008 09:47:16 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33516 On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote: > <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.devel/1831> > <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.s 26 Mar 2008 18:35:58 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33505 Julian Mehnle wrote: > Any comments on that? Yeah, in <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.devel/1831> <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mai 26 Mar 2008 17:49:45 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33504 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Julian Mehnle wrote: > [ "a:<64chars>.bar" / "a:%{macro-that-expands-to-64+chars}.bar" ] > > I have tho 26 Mar 2008 15:16:28 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33502 On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > > > In fact, this would be another tweak for SPFv3: only report > > PermErr 20 Mar 2008 13:27:49 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33455 For those of you running Debian Stable (Etch) interested in doing SPF checking with Postfix, you can now get what you need from etch-bakcports. Inst 20 Mar 2008 13:16:59 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33454 Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > In fact, this would be another tweak for SPFv3: only report > PermError for exactly 2 SPF records (v3 should not use TXT) 20 Mar 2008 06:18:52 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33450 When Pyspf get a PermError, it still attempts to get a "best guess" result by heuristically examining the SPF record. I just realized another simple 19 Mar 2008 11:32:23 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33445 The new version can be found at: http://www.openspf.org/blobs/pypolicyd-spf-0.6.tar.gz Significant changes include: * Logging redesign: - Change 24 Feb 2008 20:11:05 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33318 Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > Be strict in what you transmit, lax in what you receive. > Obviously, you would publish 512 records for some time yet, > 09 Jan 2008 06:07:42 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33094 On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Of course 4408bis could adjust 512 to 811 if that's *really* > common practice at this time (for the rea 09 Jan 2008 05:25:19 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33093 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Frank Ellermann wrote: > Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > > I understand it is too late, since we already men 09 Jan 2008 04:28:45 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33080 Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > I understand it is too late, since we already mentioned 512 > in the rfc. But maybe a SHOULD support at least 811... Of 09 Jan 2008 04:20:49 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33079 On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote: > I don't get Stuart's proposal "just replace 512 by 811". The old > UDP limit doesn't go away just becau 08 Jan 2008 07:11:25 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33064 Julian Mehnle wrote: > the only place where RFC 4408 is explicitly mentioning the 512 bytes > limit is in section 3.1.4, "record size", saying that S 07 Jan 2008 23:33:40 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/33059 On Friday 04 January 2008 11:46, Alejandro Cabrera Obed wrote: > Dear people, > > I've have a mail server composed by DebianEtch + Postfix 2.3.8-2 + C 04 Jan 2008 09:37:21 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32977 On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Julian Mehnle wrote: > > 2. Security software might block DNS records with unknown record types, > > and might not know about AAA 04 Jan 2008 08:51:48 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32976 Dear people, I've have a mail server composed by DebianEtch + Postfix 2.3.8-2 + Courier 4.1. I've installed SPF as a Debian package in order to check 04 Jan 2008 08:46:22 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32975 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Julian Mehnle wrote: > > > http://www.icann.org/committe 04 Jan 2008 08:41:57 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32974 On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Julian Mehnle wrote: > > http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac018.pdf > > Can you be more specific about what sort of bug 04 Jan 2008 08:16:18 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32973 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > Just before year's end, ICANN/IANA sent out a short message saying > that "o 04 Jan 2008 07:53:24 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32972 Noted on slashdot: Just before year's end, ICANN/IANA sent out a short message saying that "on 4 February 2008, IANA will add AAAA records for th 04 Jan 2008 07:00:52 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32971 On Thursday 27 December 2007 16:28:13 Julian Mehnle wrote: > Paweł Zuzelski wrote: > > I'm trying to configure exim-4.69 with libsfp2-1.2.5. > > > > 02 Jan 2008 05:40:50 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32948 On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:28:13 +0000 Julian Mehnle <julian@mehnle.net> wrote: >Pawe
B Zuzelski wrote: >> I'm trying to configure exim-4.69 with libsfp2- 27 Dec 2007 10:06:41 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32929 Pawel, Not sure if this is the same thing or not, but I had a similar problem with exim-4.68 & libspf2-1.2.5 on Sun Solaris 10. One of the Solaris 27 Dec 2007 07:52:43 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32926 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Paweł Zuzelski wrote: > I'm trying to configure exim-4.69 with libsfp2-1.2.5. > > Exim receives Segmen 27 Dec 2007 07:28:13 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32925 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Sorry for my english. I hope you will understand me: I'm trying to configure exim-4.69 with libsfp2-1. 27 Dec 2007 07:01:37 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32924 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Paweł Zuzelski wrote: > I want to send a bug report. I tried to open a ticket by mailing > libspf2@rt. 27 Dec 2007 04:43:47 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32923 Hi, I want to send a bug report. I tried to open a ticket by mailing libspf2@rt.anarres.org, but I have received the following error:   libspf2@rt 27 Dec 2007 03:10:23 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32922 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Guy wrote: > Does the test-suite test for extra TXT records? My domain has an extra > TXT record from 10 Dec 2007 16:05:17 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32804 Eugene Crosser wrote: > From "man -3 realloc": > "If ptr is NULL, the call is equivalent to malloc(size)" Thanks, my K&R 2nd ed. is old, it doesn't 10 Dec 2007 13:43:00 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32800 Frank Ellermann wrote: > Bas Verhoeven wrote: > >> SPF_response_t *spf_response = NULL; > > It's years that I used C, but from your description I' 10 Dec 2007 11:17:42 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32793 Bas Verhoeven wrote: > SPF_response_t *spf_response = NULL; It's years that I used C, but from your description I'd test: SPF_response_t *spf_resp 10 Dec 2007 10:25:53 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32792 On Monday 10 December 2007 11:50, Bas Verhoeven wrote: > Hi, > > I am experiencing problems with libspf2. I have been trying various > versions starti 10 Dec 2007 08:59:25 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32790 Hi, I am experiencing problems with libspf2. I have been trying various versions starting with libspf2 1.0.4, and so far every version I tried (up 10 Dec 2007 08:50:07 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32789 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Julian Mehnle wrote: > > OK, but where is the "a:<64char 09 Dec 2007 15:28:48 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32777 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Julian Mehnle wrote: > > OK, but where is the "a:<64char 09 Dec 2007 15:26:49 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32776 On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Julian Mehnle wrote: > OK, but where is the "a:<64chars>.bar" case being tested then? > No, "toolonglabel" is not it. Yes, tha 09 Dec 2007 13:58:38 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32774 Julian Mehnle wrote: > I think 2.5.7/1/3 (the third sentence, which I quoted in > the message you are referring below) is actually a mistake. Okay, 09 Dec 2007 06:36:34 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/devel/32773