scott at kitterman
Dec 3, 2007, 2:22 PM
Post #2 of 2
(521 views)
Permalink
|
|
Re: Possible other RFC 4408 erratum (2.5.7): PermError due to macro expansion?
[In reply to]
|
|
On Monday 03 December 2007 16:44, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> Julian Mehnle wrote:
> > > > As for real implementation behavior, Mail::SPF currently treats
> > > > "a:foo..bar" as a simple mismatch.
> > >
> > > Wait a moment, I was talking about <target-name> foo..bar, are you
> > > talking about a <directive> a:foo..bar ? Adjacent dots before the
> > > macro expansion step directly written in a policy are a PermError,
> > > aren't they ?
> >
> > I was talking about <target-name> = "foo..bar", but it's all the same,
> > really. "a:foo..bar" is not a syntax error. In any case, according to
> > RFC 4408, a PermError should not be thrown for that reason.
>
> Uhmmmm, it just occurred to me that RFC 4408, 2.5.7[1] makes the following
>
> disturbing statement:
> | Be aware that if the domain owner uses macros (Section 8), it is
> | possible that this [PermError] result is due to the checked identities
> | having an unexpected format.
>
> This implies that "a:%{h}" with HELO = "1.2.3.4" COULD be considered to
> justify a PermError result. However, I think we better make an erratum
> out of this, since there's probably not a single SPF implementation on
> earth that actually performs another syntax check after macro expansion.
>
> Comments?
>
> References:
> 1. http://www.openspf.org/RFC_4408#op-result-permerror
>
I'd say possible ~ MAY and so it's right either way. No need for erratum.
Scott K
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/1007/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/1007/
Modify Your Subscription: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311533&id_secret=71632746-295c2f
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
|
