scott at kitterman
Oct 15, 2008, 5:13 PM
Post #2 of 4
(1389 views)
Permalink
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:54:44 +0100 Shevek <spf [at] anarres> wrote:
>On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 00:10 +0400, Eugene Crosser wrote:
>> Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> > There is (at last) a new libspf2 release.
>>
>> This does not look good to me.
>[SNIP]
>> but the new one:
>>
>> $ /usr/local/libspf2-1.2.8/bin/spfquery -ip 127.0.0.1 -sender
>> crosser [at] average
>> spf_interpret.c:60 Error: spf_record is NULL
>> Aborted
>>
>> Am I missing something? Is there any kind of changelog anywhere?
>
>No, I did. This was a consequence of my code executing the wrong
>instructions in the wrong order, and was a little more subtle than I
>realised. The tarball has been replaced, thank you for your report.
>
>I took advantage of the chance to replace the tarball to include two
>other minor fixes contributed by the community.
>
>Please have another poke at it, and we'll see if we've managed to make
>the world a wonderful place yet.
>
>Thank you.
>
>S.
>
>P.S. Julian, test suite case?
I think the presence of special processing for localhost is a anachronism
that should be deprecated and eventually removed. There is nothing in RFC
4408 that says to give special treatment for localhost addresses.
We removed the equivalent from pyspf two or three years ago and the
released Mail::SPF never supported it.
Scott K
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
|
