Re: Upcoming new test-suite release

Julian Mehnle wrote:

> The "a:<64chars>.bar" case seems way more fundamental than 
> "a:%{macro-that-expands-to-64+chars}.bar", yet you seem to
> think that testing only the latter is sufficient.

IMO test both, it's in the spirit of Stuart's proposal to
cover all plausible code paths in a buggy implementation.

> I have thought long about how a PermError (let alone 
> TempError) could be justified for those cases, but I 
> couldn't find a reasonable rationale, so I took the 
> liberty of narrowing it down to "no-match".

Does that agree with your proposal of a new erratum wrt
"Permerror after macro expansion" ?  I haven't checked
this yet (later: now I did, see below).

> do we really need an erratum (currently noted as 
> <http://www.openspf.org/RFC_4408/Errata#permerror-invalid-domains>) 
> codifying the "no-match" behavior, or can we just drop
> the draft erratum entry?

That wannabe-erratum doesn't propose a fix, I guess what
I meant is "whatever you do, this is no TempError", or
"better let's say what it is" (no match or PermError).

But you found something about a PermError in the spec.,
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.devel/1804
about http://www.openspf.org/RFC_4408#op-result-permerror
(= http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4408#section-2.5.7 )

What's a "checked identity having an unexpected format",
and where's Wayne when I want to kick his [guess]... ;-)

Have all syntatically valid identities expected formats ?
"good..dots"@example is syntactically valid, but simple
good..dots.example queries won't work for %{l}.example,
while good\.\.dots.example should work.

OTOH bad..dots.example is a syntactically invalid HELO,
does 2.5.7 mean that a:%{h} should throw a PermError ?

Likewise bad..dots@example is syntactically invalid,
implementations MUST NOT try to fix it for a possible
bad\.\.dots.example query.    

We could say 2.5.7 got it wrong, and it should be "no
match", not PermError.  Or we could remove the wannabe-
erratum keeping 2.5.7 and its obscure PermError as is.

In both cases I think that interpreting dots within a
quoted string (LHS) as "embedded dots" makes sense, it
is almost the same as "back\\slash"@example or other
odd creatures you might find in a local part for %{l}.

No erratum for the latter, but some ugly new test cases
where it would be a surprise if SPF implementations got
it right... :-(  2822upd will be somewhat simpler, no
more NO-WS-CTL.  But still quoted dots and backslashes.

 Frank

-------------------------------------------
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=74004709-fddca4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com