[spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 (6595)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 03 June 2021 09:36 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 3FD0C3A31B5 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 02:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LH2ep2_qYREh for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 02:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C7E83A31AE for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 02:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 2A15FF4071F; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 02:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
To: scott@kitterman.com, superuser@gmail.com, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, sm+ietf@elandsys.com, ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: chaosben@gmail.com, spfbis@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20210603093533.2A15FF4071F@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2021 02:35:33 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/gzw2n5k-7hS3rQF2Agh8zJUcgPA>
Subject: [spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 (6595)
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 03 Jun 2021 09:36:01 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7208, "Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6595 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Benjamin Schwarze <chaosben@gmail.com> Section: 4.6.4 Original Text ------------- As described at the end of Section 11.1, there may be cases where it is useful to limit the number of "terms" for which DNS queries return either a positive answer (RCODE 0) with an answer count of 0, or a "Name Error" (RCODE 3) answer. These are sometimes collectively referred to as "void lookups". SPF implementations SHOULD limit "void lookups" to two. An implementation MAY choose to make such a limit configurable. In this case, a default of two is RECOMMENDED. Exceeding the limit produces a "permerror" result. Corrected Text -------------- -- Addition to the original paragraph -- ADMDs should be aware that the void lookup limit can easily be exceeded by using sender-specific macros ("s", "l", "o", "i", "h") in more than 2 terms. The following example will lead to an permerror in the most implementations if the <ip> is not found in any of the lists: v=spf1 exists:%{ir}.list1.example.net exists:%{ir}.list2.example.net exists:%{ir}.list3.example.net -all Notes ----- In addition to the above suggestion, I still see a contradiction between the "void lookup limit" and the "exists" mechanism. The functionality of "exists" includes (in my opinion) the negative response (RCODE 3). But the "void lookup limit" allows this to occur only twice. This limits the use of "exists" very much. Admittedly: I have no good idea how to solve this. :-) Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC7208 (draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-21) -------------------------------------- Title : Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1 Publication Date : April 2014 Author(s) : S. Kitterman Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : SPF Update Area : Applications Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 (659… RFC Errata System
- Re: [spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 … John R. Levine
- Re: [spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 … Stuart D. Gathman