https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6490
--- Comment #6 from [email protected] 2011-05-03 18:30:43 UTC --- Why need that be stated at all? It's not part of the SPF specification per RFC 4408? The two error conditions are separate result states from "NONE" -- the latter being strictly defined as either a DNS NXDOMAIN state or DNS NOERROR state with DNS answers being zero (meaning that some other RR-type exists for the label queried), or if temporary use of TXT-RRs, that no TXT-RR starts with the string "v=spf".* The original module didn't make such a comment as you ask or suggest I do, so why should I? The addition of the "NONE" state does not affect the results of the error states. It is documented in the MAIL::SPF module. Why should I assume that you're not familiar with it? * - (However, NO ONE should be using TXT-RRs for SPF. The dedicated SPF-RR was authorized by IANA in 2006, and 5 years is more than enough time to make the transition.) -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
