Re: include: result confusion?

Hi!

Just to be public about this (I've already talked in private about this
with Scott):

My patch about the result code for included, but missing domains was
*wrong*. Please ignore it. The code in v1.2.8 *is* correct in this
respect. My local *test* was wrong.

The other patch (src/libspf/spf_request.c) still stands, I think.

Kind regards and sorry for any confusion,

Hannah.

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:28:10PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
>[...]

>>From f85a9a71c8051394c1f3c108f8eb0ba51e611be3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>From: Hannah Schroeter <[email protected]>
>Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:28:33 +0200
>Subject: [PATCH] Fix result for include: of a domain that has no SPF or TXT record
> (should be PermError).

>---
> src/libspf2/spf_interpret.c |    5 +----
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

That's what's *wrong*.

>[...]

>>From 5fdb382c9ecb40236ca8c41cec2b08d11e429774 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>From: Hannah Schroeter <[email protected]>
>Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:09:05 +0200
>Subject: [PATCH] actually keep track of max_var_len so SPF_record_expand_data doesn't fail
> and abort the whole program on some cases, e.g. creating the Received-SPF
> header when the envelope from is very long.

>---
> src/libspf2/spf_request.c |   50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

>[...]

That's what's probably ok.