https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7112
--- Comment #6 from Joe Quinn <[email protected]> --- I have committed additional return status checking for SPF queries, and added test rules for permerror and temperror/error. There are two backends supported for performing the SPF queries, and they handle errors differently. I was able to test the Mail::SPF backend against an eBay forgery and correctly get T_SPF_TEMPERROR, but had to rely on documentation for Mail::SPF::Query. I would also have liked to add unit testing for it, but that requires someone to set up broken SPF records. I think this should be enough of a framework for server operators to make more informed decisions when a domain has this type of DNS issue. Does anyone have an opinion on what sort of score this rule should be given? I am inclined to give it 0.001 to line up with some of the other SPF rules, but I can also argue scoring it higher for its indication of technical issues and potential to bypass user rules that test SPF_NONE. Committed revision 1656028. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
