You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to server-dev@james.apache.org by ba...@apache.org on 2008/01/15 10:35:29 UTC
svn commit: r612057 -
/james/jspf/trunk/src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/rfc4408-tests.yml
Author: bago
Date: Tue Jan 15 01:35:29 2008
New Revision: 612057
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=612057&view=rev
Log:
Update the rfc4408-tests.yml to the latest available from the openspf group.
Modified:
james/jspf/trunk/src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/rfc4408-tests.yml
Modified: james/jspf/trunk/src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/rfc4408-tests.yml
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/james/jspf/trunk/src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/rfc4408-tests.yml?rev=612057&r1=612056&r2=612057&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- james/jspf/trunk/src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/rfc4408-tests.yml (original)
+++ james/jspf/trunk/src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/rfc4408-tests.yml Tue Jan 15 01:35:29 2008
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
# Scott Kitterman
# Norman Maurer
# Mark Shewmaker
+# Philip Gladstone
#
---
description: Initial processing
@@ -230,9 +231,9 @@
result: [permerror, fail]
multispf2:
description: >-
- Older implementations will give pass because there is a single
- TXT record. But RFC 4408 requires permerror because the SPF
- records override and there are more than one.
+ Older implementations ignoring SPF-type records will give pass because
+ there is a (single) TXT record. But RFC 4408 requires permerror because
+ the SPF records override and there are more than one.
spec: 4.5/6
helo: mail.example1.com
host: 1.2.3.4
@@ -260,7 +261,7 @@
example1.com:
- SPF: v=spf1
example2.com:
- - SPF: [ 'v=spf1', 'mx' ]
+ - SPF: ['v=spf1', 'mx']
mail.example1.com:
- A: 1.2.3.4
example4.com:
@@ -369,7 +370,7 @@
helo: mail.example.com
host: 1.2.3.4
mailfrom: foo@t10.example.com
- result: [ fail, temperror ]
+ result: [fail, temperror]
invalid-domain-long:
description: >-
Domain-spec must end in macro-expand or valid toplabel.
@@ -383,7 +384,7 @@
helo: "%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"
host: 1.2.3.4
mailfrom: foo@t11.example.com
- result: [ fail, temperror ]
+ result: [fail, temperror]
zonedata:
mail.example.com:
- A: 1.2.3.4
@@ -688,6 +689,14 @@
host: 1.2.3.4
mailfrom: foo@e5.example.com
result: permerror
+ a-only-top-label:
+ description: >-
+ Domain-spec may not consist of only a top-label without a leading dot.
+ spec: 8.1/2
+ helo: mail.example.com
+ host: 1.2.3.4
+ mailfrom: foo@e5a.example.com
+ result: permerror
a-colon-domain:
description: >-
Domain-spec may contain any visible char except %
@@ -720,6 +729,20 @@
host: 1.2.3.4
mailfrom: foo@e13.example.com
result: permerror
+ a-valid-syntax-but-unqueryable:
+ description: >-
+ If a DNS-interactive mechanism has valid syntax according to the SPF
+ specification, but a DNS query cannot be composed from its target-name
+ (e.g. due to empty labels, i.e. two or more successive dots), then the
+ mechanism should be treated as a no-match.
+ comment: >-
+ The rationale is that, technically, the mechanism is not a syntax error,
+ and the odd target-name obviously cannot exist in DNS.
+ spec: 8.1/2
+ helo: mail.example.com
+ host: 1.2.3.4
+ mailfrom: foo@e14.example.com
+ result: neutral
zonedata:
mail.example.com:
- A: 1.2.3.4
@@ -741,6 +764,8 @@
- SPF: v=spf1 a:111.222.33.44
e5.example.com:
- SPF: v=spf1 a:abc.123
+ e5a.example.com:
+ - SPF: v=spf1 a:museum
e6.example.com:
- SPF: v=spf1 a//33 -all
e6a.example.com:
@@ -762,6 +787,8 @@
- SPF: v=spf1 a:example.-com
e13.example.com:
- SPF: "v=spf1 a:"
+ e14.example.com:
+ - SPF: v=spf1 a:example..com
---
description: Include mechanism semantics and syntax
tests:
@@ -1096,7 +1123,7 @@
e11.example.com:
- SPF: v=spf1 mx:foo:bar/baz.example.com
foo:bar/baz.example.com:
- - MX: [ 0, "foo:bar/baz.example.com"]
+ - MX: [0, "foo:bar/baz.example.com"]
- A: 1.2.3.4
e12.example.com:
- SPF: v=spf1 mx:example.-com
@@ -1393,7 +1420,7 @@
However, it is generally agreed, with precedent in other RFCs,
that unknown-modifier should not be "greedy", and should not
match known modifier names. There should have been explicit
- prose to this effect, and some has been proposed as an errata.
+ prose to this effect, and some has been proposed as an erratum.
spec: 6.1/2
helo: mail.example.com
host: 1.2.3.4
@@ -1501,8 +1528,8 @@
returned, or if more than one record is returned, or if there are syntax
errors in the explanation string, then proceed as if no exp modifier was
given." However, "if domain-spec is empty" conflicts with the grammar
- given for the exp modifier. This was reported as an errata, and the
- solution chosen was to report explicit exp= as PermError, but ignore
+ given for the exp modifier. This was reported as an erratum, and the
+ solution chosen was to report explicit "exp=" as PermError, but ignore
problems due to macro expansion, DNS, or invalid explanation string.
spec: 6.2/4
helo: mail.example.com
@@ -1535,7 +1562,7 @@
However, it is generally agreed, with precedent in other RFCs,
that unknown-modifier should not be "greedy", and should not
match known modifier names. There should have been explicit
- prose to this effect, and some has been proposed as an errata.
+ prose to this effect, and some has been proposed as an erratum.
spec: 6.2/1
helo: mail.example.com
host: 1.2.3.4
@@ -1812,7 +1839,7 @@
helo: msgbas2x.cos.example.com
host: 192.168.218.42
mailfrom: test@e7.example.com
- result: [ pass, softfail ]
+ result: [pass, softfail]
upper-macro:
spec: 8.1/26
description: >-
@@ -1862,6 +1889,15 @@
host: 1.2.3.4
mailfrom: test@e10.example.com
result: fail
+ macro-reverse-split-on-dash:
+ spec: [8.1/15, 8.1/16, 8.1/17, 8.1/18]
+ description: >-
+ Macro value transformation (splitting on arbitrary characters, reversal,
+ number of right-hand parts to use)
+ helo: mail.example.com
+ host: 1.2.3.4
+ mailfrom: philip-gladstone-test@e11.example.com
+ result: pass
zonedata:
example.com.d.spf.example.com:
- SPF: v=spf1 redirect=a.spf.example.com
@@ -1934,6 +1970,10 @@
- SPF: v=spf1 -include:_spfh.%{d2} ip4:1.2.3.0/24 -all
_spfh.example.com:
- SPF: v=spf1 -a:%{h} +all
+ e11.example.com:
+ - SPF: v=spf1 exists:%{i}.%{l2r-}.user.%{d2}
+ 1.2.3.4.gladstone.philip.user.example.com:
+ - A: 127.0.0.2
---
description: Processing limits
tests:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org