> Someone else mentioned this last week. Reading the spec literally, > it seems like the correct result code in this situation should be > "unknown", and I'll make this change in the next version.
Which spec are you reading, Sam? Are you looking at RFC 4408 (http:// www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4408.txt) or some earlier iteration? The "unknown" result went away well before the RFC was published. I believe the correct response is now "PermError". From RFC 4408: SPF implementations MUST limit the number of mechanisms and modifiers that do DNS lookups to at most 10 per SPF check, including any lookups caused by the use of the "include" mechanism or the "redirect" modifier. If this number is exceeded during a check, a PermError MUST be returned. --Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
