1 Aug 2004 04:41
Re: Case Sensitivity
James Couzens <jcouzens <at> 6o4.ca>
2004-08-01 02:41:40 GMT
2004-08-01 02:41:40 GMT
Marc, On Sat, 2004-07-31 at 09:06, marc <at> alaia.net wrote: > Hey, everyone. A situation has come up on the SPF-Help list where a > receiver is rejecting inbound mail from a domain and it turns out that > the problem is case sensitivity. A test using libspf2 verified that > libspf2, at least, is case sensitive. It is not in the spec, and it is wrong. > Is this an implementation issue or a spec issue, or not an issue at > all? What I mean is: > - Are all DNS-related issues supposed to be case-insensitive, so this > does not need to be in the spec, but certain implementations have > implemented it wrong? This is a bug in "libspf-alt" AKA "libspf2". This sort of behaviour is common with immature and developing libraries. Feel free to inform this individual that they might wish to give one of the other implementations a try. Since I am clearly biased as the author of libSPF, (although I would recommend using it), I am left to advise that the individual in question consult the spf.pobox.com website and select an alternative library immediately to avoid further problems. Given that age is often a good gauge as to maturity one might look at the Mail::SPF:Query implementation which has spent the longest time in the wild. > - Are all DNS-related issues not specified, so the SPF spec needs to > say? > - Or do people need to be aware that case may cause their mail to be > rejected? People need to be made aware that they shouldn't be using this software on production servers when its so young! As an example, libspf-alt has only had 4 public releases, where as the library I am a developer for, libSPF, has seen release of 25 separate alpha/beta releases in addition to the 4 recent release candidates on our way to a version we can carefully call STABLE when it really is. It is unfortunate that the library in question has attempted to purport themselves to the public as anything other than UNSTABLE. The unusual leap they made from v0.3 to 1.04 is unfortunately rather misleading in the stability department. Good luck! -- -- James Couzens, Programmer ( ( ( ((__)) __lib__ __SPF__ '. ___ .' (00) (o o) (0~0) ' (> <) ' ---nn-(o__o)-nn---ooO--(_)--Ooo--ooO--(_)--Ooo---ooO--(_)--Ooo--- http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library ----------------------------------------------------------------- PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A7C7DCF ------- Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/ Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/ Send us money! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss <at> v2.listbox.com
RSS Feed