On Friday 13 July 2007 22:20, Magnus Holmgren wrote: > Any comments or objections to these patches? > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=5;att=1;bug=430508 > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=5;att=1;bug=431239
I've looked closer at the code and wonder, Robert, if you have an example
where libspf2 gives the wrong result, in your opinion.
SPF_request_set_helo_dom() calls SPF_request_set_env_from(), with the HELO
domain unmodified, if the helo_dom field hasn't been set yet, which causes
env_from to be filled in with "postmaster@" plus the HELO domain, and
env_from_lp and env_from_dp accordingly. This *should* (I think) cause the
HELO domain to be used in all cases where it should, *provided* that
SPF_request_set_env_from() isn't called with an empty envelope sender. Hence
the bug can be seen as the fact that the documentation doesn't mention that
fact and/or that SPF_request_set_env_from() doesn't complain against, or
ignore, an empty envelope sender.
--
Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
pgpz8sUveiWTA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
