My read of RFC 4408 is that the limit excludes the initial txt record lookup, and that the limit on includes is separate from the limit on "a" and "ptr" lookups.
--Bryan Costales http://www.bcx.com >------------ > Quoting Terry Zink <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] microsoft.com invalid spf >------------ > I can help fix this. > > -- Terry > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Levine > Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 7:06 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] microsoft.com invalid spf > > >>The SPF record described in that page bears no resemblance I can see > >>to the actual one you find if you do a dig. > > > >I didn't check if it matched, but the one I got was permerror due too many DNS lookups. > > It's different, but I counted the lookups and you're right, it's at least 11. > > R's, > John > _______________________________________________ > dmarc-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss > > NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html) > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss > > NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html) _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
