apache at bago
Jun 26, 2009, 5:40 AM
Post #3 of 3
We just released jSPF 0.9.7 passing both rfc4408-tests-2008.08.yml and
Re: jSPF 0.9.6 passing RFC 4408 test suite 2007.05; no more "reference implementations"!
[In reply to]
current trunk's rfc4408-tests.yml.
Please update the Implementations page, when you have time.
PS: the openspf website is currently down.
Stefano Bagnara ha scritto:
> 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:
>> 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,
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/1007/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com