Mailing List Archive

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:28:18 -0400 (EDT) "Stuart D. Gathman"
> <stuart@bmsi.com> wrote:
> >Does the following record return pass, or permerror?
> >
> >"v=spf1 all -all"
>
> Unless some finds where it says "only one All" in RFC 4408, it's Pass.

I agree. Another nit for the SPFv3 bug list.

BTW, pyspf flunks every single macro expansion and exp modifer test
I've added. Needs work. I've committed the latest test suite to
the pyspf project - where you can conveniently run it.

--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart@bmsi.com>
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.

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel@v2.listbox.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
> Does the following record return pass, or permerror?
>
> "v=spf1 all -all"

| 5.1. "all"
|
| all = "all"
|
| The "all" mechanism is a test that always matches. It is used as the
| rightmost mechanism in a record to provide an explicit default.
|
| For example:
|
| v=spf1 a mx -all
|
| Mechanisms after "all" will never be tested. Any "redirect" modifier
| (Section 6.1) has no effect when there is an "all" mechanism.

"['all'] is used as the rightmost mechanism in a record to provide an
explicit default" cannot mean that "all" always has to be the rightmost
mechanism, or the next sentence, "Mechanisms after 'all' will never be
tested", would make no sense. Ergo, you can list more mechanisms after
"all". And nowhere does the spec say that "all" may only be used once.

So "v=spf1 all -all" results in "Pass".

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFEFcUwL7PKlBZWjsRAhidAJ48oQzhgJT6Xy4beVSuCUkb+ucM/wCcD8bo
tTT7uL/2Ug5PliEeYPPHXmE=
=681A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel@v2.listbox.com

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> >BTW, pyspf flunks every single macro expansion and exp modifer test
> >I've added. Needs work. I've committed the latest test suite to
> >the pyspf project - where you can conveniently run it.

> OK. I hope you've included "Test suite for Dummies" in the package. I
> could handle 'python spf.py' for the built in tests.

You should be ready then for 'python testspf.py' for the test suite.

--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart@bmsi.com>
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.

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel@v2.listbox.com

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:28:18 -0400 (EDT) "Stuart D. Gathman"
<stuart@bmsi.com> wrote:
>Does the following record return pass, or permerror?
>
>"v=spf1 all -all"

Unless some finds where it says "only one All" in RFC 4408, it's Pass.

Scott K

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel@v2.listbox.com

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:44:19 -0400 (EDT) "Stuart D. Gathman"
<stuart@bmsi.com> wrote:
>
>BTW, pyspf flunks every single macro expansion and exp modifer test
>I've added. Needs work. I've committed the latest test suite to
>the pyspf project - where you can conveniently run it.
>
OK. I hope you've included "Test suite for Dummies" in the package. I
could handle 'python spf.py' for the built in tests.

Scott K

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel@v2.listbox.com

On Tuesday 19 September 2006 16:53, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > >BTW, pyspf flunks every single macro expansion and exp modifer test
> > >I've added. Needs work. I've committed the latest test suite to
> > >the pyspf project - where you can conveniently run it.
> >
> > OK. I hope you've included "Test suite for Dummies" in the package. I
> > could handle 'python spf.py' for the built in tests.
>
> You should be ready then for 'python testspf.py' for the test suite.

No, maybe not.

The Python YAML that I have installed (and the only one I can immediately
apt-get) is Syck:

http://packages.debian.org/unstable/python/python-syck

Apparently not the one you used:

$ python testspf.py
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "testspf.py", line 6, in ?
import yaml
ImportError: No module named yaml

Once I survive this experience, I'll add some info to the README in the CVS
version so the documentation will get better.

Which Python YAML did you use? Which version?

Scott K


-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel@v2.listbox.com

On Thursday 21 September 2006 01:01, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> Which Python YAML did you use? Which version?
>
> Scott K
>
I take it that it was:

http://pyyaml.org/wiki/PyYAML

I got it working now.

Scott K

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel@v2.listbox.com

On Tuesday 19 September 2006 15:44, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:

> BTW, pyspf flunks every single macro expansion and exp modifer test
> I've added. Needs work. I've committed the latest test suite to
> the pyspf project - where you can conveniently run it.

No longer _ALL_. I fixed one of them.

If you want an example record that makes heavy use of macros to really break
stuff, look here:

gladstonefamily.net. 7200 IN TXT "v=spf1 redirect=spf.%{d}"
spf.gladstonefamily.net. 600 IN TXT "v=spf1 -exists:%{i}.
%{l1r-}.user.%{d} a:charon.gladstonefamily.net a:server.gladstonefamily.net
a:mail.employees.org ?ptr:comcast.net -exists:%{i}.100/86400.rate.%{d} ~all"

This is quite legal. When I set up the validator last year, Philip
Gladstone "helped" me find a lot of issues with the validator setup and iirc
pySPF. AFAICT, pySPF processes this record correctly.


Scott K

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel@v2.listbox.com