IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 - Fully parse record *first*

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 22 April 2013 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0FD821F929E for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 96oga9GOOVip for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0840C21F9283 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1366648677; bh=XPVpQYxTU4gPfKOUBB4tfePxxScxCKmWeZIELvYTPBk=; l=1139; h=Date:From:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=S+8eUDjeNxe3uNpcjhvjLIgnlJOFhww17HF32K4YH5VqZHpH9bPzTIH1vyo6j9Ij/ MMpRNUU6Z1wMzbgxvxnQv+wlZMx5aDY0KHUWVXMXuOFAY7HURcB42qnhm3ZxjiQO77 h/KFiS4T2toRfEEQrc7ddCDq7aCNoD/nOBdEFUf8=
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.101] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.101]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:37:56 +0200 id 00000000005DC02B.0000000051756764.00006AF4
Message-ID: <51756764.6030104@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:37:56 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: spfbis@ietf.org
References: <20130409062431.GK24624@mx1.yitter.info> <17085583.vi2SDUBAix@scott-latitude-e6320> <51755BD1.5080106@tana.it> <1890223.gRaPZiil6c@scott-latitude-e6320>
In-Reply-To: <1890223.gRaPZiil6c@scott-latitude-e6320>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 - Fully parse record *first*
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:37:59 -0000

On Mon 22/Apr/2013 18:06:41 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Monday, April 22, 2013 05:48:33 PM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> On Mon 22/Apr/2013 16:04:11 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Mechanisms after "all" will never be tested.  Mechanisms listed after
>>>> "all"
>>>> MUST be ignored.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps if we combine those it helps:
>>>> Mechanisms after "all" MUST not be tested.  Mechanisms listed after "all"
>>>> will be ignored for all purposes except syntax error evaluation.
>>> 
>>> Does that help?
>> 
>> Nope, IMHO it's better as is now.  That is:
>> 
>> CURRENT
>>    If there are any syntax errors
>> EQUIVALENT-FROM-A-PRAGMATIC-POV
>>    If any syntax errors are found
>> 
>>    anywhere in the record, check_host() returns immediately with the
>>    result "permerror", without further interpretation.
>> 
>> See also http://tools.ietf.org/wg/spfbis/trac/ticket/26
>> and http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg02765.html
> 
> Right, but how can you find a syntax error in something you MUST ignore?

You have to parse it anyway, as it might be a modifier, e.g.

   "v=spf1 a -all ra=rfc6652"

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email