nobody at xyzzy
Dec 7, 2007, 9:37 AM
Post #5 of 5
(805 views)
Permalink
|
|
Re: Upcoming new test-suite release -- please review!
[In reply to]
|
|
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
> + e14.example.com:
> + - SPF: v=spf1 a:example..com
> There was already a test for this: invalid-domain-empty-label.
> It currently allows for either ignoring the empty label, or
> permerror. If there is an official errata requiring nomatch
> instead of permerror, then simply change the result set of
> the existing test.
IMO we have a (last *1) pending erratum in this direction, this
could be joined with Julian's recent proposal if it's about the
same problem.
> + e5a.example.com:
> + - SPF: v=spf1 a:museum
> This seems to be not redundant. However, it seems unintuitive to
> me that example..com must be ignored, but museum gets a permerr.
We have a "one dot required" syntax rule. IIRC it was not only an
attempt to mirror the soon obsolete 2821 syntax, we need it to find
the CIDR in a <domain-spec>. A result of MARID, where a friend of
Mark cried foul after a getting "parser yamming" with flex or yacc.
Let's accept the musem PERMERROR as oddity, please. I've removed
my unconfirmed and related "TLD is a valid domain" erratum based
on what 2821bis does (permit TLDs). So far the DNS folks didn't
complain: Maybe it's irrelevant if DNS queries for "oemcomputer"
are indirectly "permitted" by 2821bis, if MTAs did this anyway,
no matter what 2821 said. <shrug />
Frank
1: "last erratum" as in "I just moved emty exp to approved", with
an edit history comment hinting that public support by Scott,
Julian, you, and me is a kind of "SPF Council approval".
-------------------------------------------
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=73670357-4cdd81
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
|
