On 12/07/2011 01:58 AM, Henrik Stoerner wrote: > Package: tumgreyspf > Version: 1.35-7 > Severity: wishlist > > tumgreyspf 1.35 (current version in Debian) causes mail to be rejected, if > the > sender-domain has an invalid SPF record (SPF check returns a "Permerror"). > This can cause valid mail to be rejected. > > In version 1.36, released a couple of weeks ago, this was changed so it is > now configurable what tumgreyspf should do in the case of invalid SPF records, > and the default was set to accept mail when that is the case. > > I would suggest this change be included in a future Debian release, and > hopefully > as an update to Squeeze. The attached patch is taken directly from a diff > between > version 1.35 and the new 1.36, and will implement this change.
Hi, Thanks for this bug report. I'm well aware of that, as I was one of the persons making the version 1.36 happen. The patch was sent to me, and I got it forwarded to upstream. Releasing version 1.36 is in my todo list (and if you want to help, I'll happily accept, I could also move the Git packaging repository in colab-maint). However, and not related with the topic to package (or not) version 1.36, I cannot agree with this statement: > This can cause valid mail to be rejected. A mail sent from a domain with an SPF entry with a "Permerror" cannot reasonably be called a "valid mail". It's really a badly configured mail server that we are talking about. The only reason why one might sometimes want this to be accepted is because there are some bad administrator out there doing really badly their jobs, and because it might not always be easy to have them to modify their configuration to make it valid (which would still be the correct thing to do, always!). Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
