Mailing List Archive: SPF: Devel

Last erratum last call (was: Upcoming new test-suite release)

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

nobody at xyzzy

Apr 5, 2008, 3:51 PM

Post #1 of 2 (309 views)
Permalink

Last erratum last call (was: Upcoming new test-suite release)

> I think I can come up with a proposal for the three choices:

> PermError => add note that this is about a syntactically invalid
> <target-name> for DNS, for example adjacent dots.

> No match => say that the 2.5.7 statement was wrong and should
> be ignored, reflecting common "no match" practice.

> Pick => say that some implementations skip a syntactically
> invalid DNS <target-name>, e.g., adjacent dots.
[...]

> you could still change your mind

Nobody made new noises in this direction, therefore I edited
the "last erratum" to say "no match". Please check that the
proposed text says what you want:

http://www.openspf.org/RFC_4408/Errata#permerror-invalid-domains

I'd like to have a "the old Council would have decided" voice
from Alex or Scott, or a "the community clearly prefers" voice
from somebody who is neither Ale nor Terry. Or to make things
more interesting everybody can of course change their mind. ;-)

Word smithing, stylistic issues, go for it. If nothing special
happens this section will be moved to "confirmed" in the next
days.

Frank

-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/1007/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/1007/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

stuart at bmsi

Apr 6, 2008, 7:39 PM

Post #2 of 2 (279 views)
Permalink

Re: Last erratum last call (was: Upcoming new test-suite release) [In reply to]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote:

> > PermError => add note that this is about a syntactically invalid
> > <target-name> for DNS, for example adjacent dots.

> > you could still change your mind
>
> Nobody made new noises in this direction, therefore I edited
> the "last erratum" to say "no match". Please check that the
> proposed text says what you want:

You had me convinced that PermError was better than nomatch. Mainly
because literally putting a:example..com is a plausible typo that should
get a PermError, rather than silently failing to match. You made the
case that no legitimate sender should generate a PermError via macros.
(If the policy wants to accomodate braindead senders, don't use %{h}.)

My only reservation is that spammers could generate PermError via macros.
I was considering posting an auto-note to postmaster in case of PermError
in addition to a DSN, but PermError from macros would discourage that.

--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart[at]bmsi.com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.

-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/1007/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/1007/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com