Re: Upcoming new test-suite release -- please review!

Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
 
> +  e14.example.com:
> +    - SPF: v=spf1 a:example..com
 
> There was already a test for this: invalid-domain-empty-label.
> It currently allows for either ignoring the empty label, or 
> permerror.  If there is an official errata requiring nomatch
> instead of permerror, then simply change the result set of 
> the existing test.

IMO we have a (last *1) pending erratum in this direction, this
could be joined with Julian's recent proposal if it's about the
same problem.

> +  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.

We have a "one dot required" syntax rule.  IIRC it was not only an
attempt to mirror the soon obsolete 2821 syntax, we need it to find
the CIDR in a <domain-spec>.  A result of MARID, where a friend of
Mark cried foul after a getting "parser yamming" with flex or yacc.

Let's accept the musem PERMERROR as oddity, please.  I've removed
my unconfirmed and related "TLD is a valid domain" erratum based
on what 2821bis does (permit TLDs).  So far the DNS folks didn't
complain:  Maybe it's irrelevant if DNS queries for "oemcomputer"
are indirectly "permitted" by 2821bis, if MTAs did this anyway,
no matter what 2821 said. <shrug />

 Frank

1: "last erratum" as in "I just moved emty exp to approved", with
   an edit history comment hinting that public support by Scott,
   Julian, you, and me is a kind of "SPF Council approval".

-------------------------------------------
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=73671041-2843cf
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com