Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Upcoming new test-suite release -- please review! (was: SPF Implementation issues)
"Stuart D. Gathman" <[email protected]> Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:00:00 -0500 (EST)
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.spam.spf.devel,gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > > > + 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. > > How about this case: > > Result: pass ? > > e5b.example.com: > - SPF: v=spf1 a:museum. Forgot A record: museum: - A:1.2.3.4 But without A record, should it get neutral instead of permerror? -- Stuart D. Gathman <[email protected]> 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 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=6959932&id_secret=73272225-d63ef9 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com