apache at bago
Aug 21, 2008, 12:53 AM
Post #2 of 2
(306 views)
Permalink
|
|
Re: jSPF 0.9.6 passing RFC 4408 test suite 2007.05; no more "reference implementations"!
[In reply to]
|
|
Julian Mehnle ha scritto:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>> with 2008.08 jSPF 0.9.6 fails the macromania test because %- and %_ are
>> incorrectly expanded to - and _.
>> I fixed that as soon as I saw the macromania test in openspf testsuite.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> jSPF 0.9.6 conforms to (and includes) rfc4408-tests-2007.05.yml
>> The next release will pass the current specification. The only known
>> issue with jSPF 0.9.6 is the macro expansion above.
>
> Got it. I listed jSPF as compliant with 2007.05 since 0.9.6:
>
> http://www.openspf.org/Implementations
:-)
> In the process, I removed the entire "reference implementations" section.
> It was controversial from the beginning, and its entire purpose was to
> get the old Mail::SPF::Query deprecated gracefully, which once upon a
> time actually _was_ the reference implementation. It would have been
> hard to overcome M:S:Q's "reference implementation" character without
> serving any replacement, however now that we do have a number of high
> quality implementations as well as a solid compliance testing concept
> (the test suite with its release scheme), there isn't a need for having
> dedicated "reference implementations" anymore.
make sense.
>> [...]
>> At ASF (Apache Software Foundation) we have a strict release process
>> and we never recommend the use of snapshots and we never point users to
>> nightlies or snapshots.
>
> So let's NOT say anything like "2008.08: trunk" in addition to "2007.05:
> since 0.9.6".
that's perfect.
>> If you tell me that it won't take 2 more years to update the page I'll
>> ask a new run as soon as we'll release 0.9.7. We'll probably wait a bit
>> more because we want to include newer dns libraries so to fix any
>> Kaminsky DNS vulnerability and a race issue in the asynchronous version
>> of our resolver.
>
> Please do. Now that we've reasonably established that 0.9.6 passes
> 2007.05, there's little speaking against giving you the benefit of the
> doubt and _right_away_ listing 0.9.7 as passing 2008.08, but that might
> confuse users who then go looking for 0.9.7 despite it not having been
> released yet.
I agree that it is better to not list 0.9.7 until we officially release it.
Thank you,
Stefano
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/1007/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/1007/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
|
