Mailing List Archive

Upcoming new test-suite release -- please review! (was: SPF Implementation issues)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Julian Mehnle wrote:
> Philip Gladstone wrote:
> > Can I get a test case added to the SPF test suite that deals with the
> > problematic situation in my SPF record.
> >
> > In particular I have the following piece:
> >
> > -exists:%{i}.%{l1r-}.user.%{d}
> >
> > [...]
>
> We can add a test case to the test suite easily [...]

I added it in revision 94 of the test-suite trunk:

http://www.openspf.org/source/project/test-suite/rfc4408-tests.yml?view=log

If no one objects, I'll make a new test-suite release of those and
Stuart's changes in a week or so.

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

iD8DBQFHWChOwL7PKlBZWjsRAqT+AKCp3Er7UNZssQ4ZAfAHG0U8o9+rHQCg6L7S
WkVrFNk+aJ7zZlstzqn1gVw=
=2XeY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=73221539-6ce8ac
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [spf-devel] Upcoming new test-suite release -- please review! (was: SPF Implementation issues) [ In reply to ]
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Julian Mehnle wrote:

> I added it in revision 94 of the test-suite trunk:
>
> http://www.openspf.org/source/project/test-suite/rfc4408-tests.yml?view=log
>
> If no one objects, I'll make a new test-suite release of those and
> Stuart's changes in a week or so.

+ 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. Or were you concerned about
2 adjacent dots vs 3?

+ 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.

+ e11.example.com:
+ - SPF: v=spf1 exists:%{i}.%{l2r-}.user.%{d2}
+ 1.2.3.4.gladstone.philip.user.example.com:
+ - A: 127.0.0.2

Good, but the actual failing example in the field used %{l1r-}. Shouldn't
we use that?

--
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.

-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=73242808-625ef4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [spf-devel] Upcoming new test-suite release -- please review! (was: SPF Implementation issues) [ In reply to ]
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:

> + 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.

How about this case:

Result: pass ?

e5b.example.com:
- SPF: v=spf1 a:museum.

--
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.

-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=73258551-47439c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Re: [spf-devel] Upcoming new test-suite release -- please review! (was: SPF Implementation issues) [ In reply to ]
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
>
> > + 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.
>
> How about this case:
>
> Result: pass ?
>
> e5b.example.com:
> - SPF: v=spf1 a:museum.

Forgot A record:

museum:
- A:1.2.3.4

But without A record, should it get neutral instead of permerror?

--
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.

-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=73272960-e1381c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com