Mailing List Archive

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:54:44 +0100 Shevek <spf@anarres.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 00:10 +0400, Eugene Crosser wrote:
>> Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> > There is (at last) a new libspf2 release.
>>
>> This does not look good to me.
>[SNIP]
>> but the new one:
>>
>> $ /usr/local/libspf2-1.2.8/bin/spfquery -ip 127.0.0.1 -sender
>> crosser@average.org
>> spf_interpret.c:60 Error: spf_record is NULL
>> Aborted
>>
>> Am I missing something? Is there any kind of changelog anywhere?
>
>No, I did. This was a consequence of my code executing the wrong
>instructions in the wrong order, and was a little more subtle than I
>realised. The tarball has been replaced, thank you for your report.
>
>I took advantage of the chance to replace the tarball to include two
>other minor fixes contributed by the community.
>
>Please have another poke at it, and we'll see if we've managed to make
>the world a wonderful place yet.
>
>Thank you.
>
>S.
>
>P.S. Julian, test suite case?

I think the presence of special processing for localhost is a anachronism
that should be deprecated and eventually removed. There is nothing in RFC
4408 that says to give special treatment for localhost addresses.

We removed the equivalent from pyspf two or three years ago and the
released Mail::SPF never supported it.

Scott K


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Hi!

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 09:19:35AM +0400, Eugene Crosser wrote:
>[...]

>> I think the presence of special processing for localhost is a anachronism
>> that should be deprecated and eventually removed. There is nothing in RFC
>> 4408 that says to give special treatment for localhost addresses.

>I for one have nothing against removal.

Dito for me.

Kind regards,

Hannah.


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> I think the presence of special processing for localhost is a anachronism
> that should be deprecated and eventually removed. There is nothing in RFC
> 4408 that says to give special treatment for localhost addresses.
>
> We removed the equivalent from pyspf two or three years ago and the
> released Mail::SPF never supported it.

You can reuse the SPF machinery for recognizing local addresses if the
SPF library supports passing a policy without looking it up (as does pyspf).
At connect, pass a policy like "v=spf1 ip4:127.0.0.0/8 ip4:192.168.0.0/16"
and treat the connection as "local" on a Pass (and skip normal SPF
checking). The "local" policy should be configurable. You could
also reject on fail for the local policy for a consistent and configurable
blacklist (e.g. use -exists: on selected ip blacklists).

--
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
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com