Mailing List Archive

pyspf and type99
In light of the discussion on spf-discuss, I am convinced that type99
checking on pyspf should be optional. Should probably always do it in
"harsh" mode, but should default to *not* check otherwise, with a flag
to turn it on for those of use who are getting the infrstructure ready
to use it for v=spf3. (Or maybe default to check, with a flag to
omit the almost entirely redundant type99 queries for efficiency.)

Comments? BTW, currently pyspf only checks type99 in harsh mode or when
TXT return no SPF records. So the cost is paid only for domains with no
SPF.

--
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/?list_id=1007
Re: pyspf and type99 [ In reply to ]
In <Pine.LNX.4.44.0701121529070.4347-100000@bmsred.bmsi.com> "Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart@bmsi.com> writes:

> In light of the discussion on spf-discuss, I am convinced that type99
> checking on pyspf should be optional. [...]
>
> Comments?

I think that is a wise choice, especially the part about it being
optional. I think we want to encourage experienced and knowledgable
people to experiment with type99 records and try to help work out the
problems with them. I don't think we want $RANDOMUSER to worry about
them at this time.

-wayne

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=1007
Re: pyspf and type99 [ In reply to ]
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:34:20 -0500 (EST) "Stuart D. Gathman"
<stuart@bmsi.com> wrote:
>In light of the discussion on spf-discuss, I am convinced that type99
>checking on pyspf should be optional. Should probably always do it in
>"harsh" mode, but should default to *not* check otherwise, with a flag
>to turn it on for those of use who are getting the infrstructure ready
>to use it for v=spf3. (Or maybe default to check, with a flag to
>omit the almost entirely redundant type99 queries for efficiency.)
>
>Comments? BTW, currently pyspf only checks type99 in harsh mode or when
>TXT return no SPF records. So the cost is paid only for domains with no
>SPF.

I agree with this change.

I that we are getting to where we have enough options we ought to think
about a config file.

I think we should do TCP similarly.

Scott K

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=1007
Re: pyspf and type99 [ In reply to ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I [think] that we are getting to where we have enough options we ought to
> think about a config file.

Advice: don't make it a config file that globally applies to pyspf as a
_library_.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFqAQEwL7PKlBZWjsRAm44AJ9RIz4aTiUV1fPl25xAksPWGBBEqACfZ2rR
TszO93EAOgbU58lmAfL6B2o=
=RGH2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=1007
Re: pyspf and type99 [ In reply to ]
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> I that we are getting to where we have enough options we ought to think
> about a config file.

Config files are for applications. Libraries should be configured
programmatically. Otherwise, programmers using your library will hate
you. If the config is big and complex, you can offer a method to
load it from a buffer or file - but always leave control of that
up to user (programmer).

--
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/?list_id=1007
Re: pyspf and type99 [ In reply to ]
On Friday 12 January 2007 15:58, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:34:20 -0500 (EST) "Stuart D. Gathman"
>
> <stuart@bmsi.com> wrote:
> >In light of the discussion on spf-discuss, I am convinced that type99
> >checking on pyspf should be optional. Should probably always do it in
> >"harsh" mode, but should default to *not* check otherwise, with a flag
> >to turn it on for those of use who are getting the infrstructure ready
> >to use it for v=spf3. (Or maybe default to check, with a flag to
> >omit the almost entirely redundant type99 queries for efficiency.)
> >
> >Comments? BTW, currently pyspf only checks type99 in harsh mode or when
> >TXT return no SPF records. So the cost is paid only for domains with no
> >SPF.
>
> I agree with this change.
>
I just committed the change on the pyspf2.0 branch. I'll leave CVS HEAD for
you.

Scott K

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=1007
Re: pyspf and type99 [ In reply to ]
On Friday 12 January 2007 17:10, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > I that we are getting to where we have enough options we ought to think
> > about a config file.
>
> Config files are for applications. Libraries should be configured
> programmatically. Otherwise, programmers using your library will hate
> you. If the config is big and complex, you can offer a method to
> load it from a buffer or file - but always leave control of that
> up to user (programmer).

OK. I can see that. Then I think we need to work on the API then. We
currently have more options than you can get through the public spf.check or
spf.check2 APIs.

Scott K

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=1007
Re: pyspf and type99 [ In reply to ]
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> OK. I can see that. Then I think we need to work on the API then. We
> currently have more options than you can get through the public spf.check or
> spf.check2 APIs.

We need to work on docs. There are options you can set like:

spf.DELEGATE = 'example.com' # default None
spf.DEFAULT_SPF = 'v=spf1 a/24 mx/24' # default 'v=spf1 a/24 mx/24 ptr'

So, there could be such an option for type99:

spf.RECORD_SELECT = spf.TXT_ONLY

--
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/?list_id=1007