[opendmarc-dev] OpenDMARC 1.3.2.Beta1 available

[Juri Haberland]

Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 07:57:09 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> > #95   SPF validation fail for ipv6
>>
>> No idea how I missed this one.  There's a git log reference to "Bug #95"
>> (but it seems unrelated) that probably made me think this one had already
>> been handled.  Done now.
>
> For this one, is there a reason you replaced SPF_request_set_ipv4_str(spfctx-
>>spf_request, ip_address); with SPF_request_set_ipv6_str(spfctx->spf_request,
> ip_address); rather than adding SPF_request_set_ipv6_str(spfctx->spf_request,
> ip_address);?
>
> I was expecting to see:
>
>         /*
>         * we don't care at this point if it is ipv6 or ipv4
>         */
>        SPF_request_set_ipv4_str(spfctx->spf_request, ip_address);
>        SPF_request_set_ipv6_str(spfctx->spf_request, ip_address);
>        return 0;
>
> not:
>
>         /*
>          * we don't care at this point if it is ipv6 or ipv4
>          */
>         SPF_request_set_ipv6_str(spfctx->spf_request, ip_address);
>         return 0;

Scott is right, see also the libspf2 documentation:
http://www.libspf2.org/docs/html/spfquery_8c-source.html#l00606

Furthermore the commit that should fix #187 misses the compile fix and the fix
for the differing log messages (colon vs. no colon)  :(

Murray, please do us a favor and apply the patches that we provide as-is. If
you feel they do something in a way that you don't like, alter it after
applying the patch. The way you do it now you introduce new errors. The code
part that is touched by #187 is now in need of a third patch because you did
not apply the first and the second one as-is.

Murray, no offense, but I'm pulling my hair out about this :-/

Kind regards,
  Juri