Subject: [spfbis] Issue: Add IP4/IP6 Input check in section 5.6

From: Arthur Thisell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 04:33:15 -0700 (PDT)

>      v=spf1 ip4:128.0.0.0/1 ip4:0.0.0.0/1 -all

This kind of thing was discussed some while SPF was being developed.  The conclusion was:  so what?  an SPF pass doesn't mean te email is good, it means you can accurately use (and create) a reputation for that domain.

Trying to prevent the creation of an SPF record that always passes was never a design goal, so no effort was taken to even try to prevent this particular trick, or a dozen other variations.

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:26:27 -0400

In general, I'm of the opinion that in the 9+ years of empirical 
operations, 4408BIS "SHOULD" include learned optimization methods that 
will minimize DNS operations.

So it would be one method to learn it (a domain reputation) after the 
fact, but the protocol itself should/can be improved with 
deterministic error checking.  Think of a neural network and/or fuzzy 
logic where the closer you get (with added weights) to a whole number 
the more confident you have in yields.  Query dissemination is when 
our brains no longer has to calculate that 10 x 10 is 100 - no more 
learning is required, it zooms into the answer.

Anyway, another view Arthur is where 0.0.0.0 or 128.0.0.1 are 
considered invalid IP4 addresses and therefore, if so, then 4408 has 
already semantics for returning PermError.

Thanks for your input

--
HLS

Arthur Thisell wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> spfbis mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
> 
> 

-- 
HLS