# This is the openspf.org test suite (version 2007.05) based on RFC 4408.
# http://www.openspf.org/Test_Suite
#
# $Id$
# vim:sw=2 sts=2 et
#
# See rfc4408-tests.CHANGES for a changelog.
#
# Contributors:
#   Stuart D Gathman    everything so far
#   Julian Mehnle       proofread YAML syntax, spelling, formal schema
# Informal contributors (suggestions but no code):
#   Craig Whitmore
#   Frank Ellermann
#   Wayne Schlitt
#   Scott Kitterman
#   Norman Maurer
#   Mark Shewmaker
#   Philip Gladstone
#
---
description: Initial processing
tests:
  toolonglabel:
    description: >-
      DNS labels limited to 63 chars.
    comment: >-
      For initial processing, a long label results in None, not TempError
    spec: 4.3/1
    helo: mail.example.net
    host: 1.2.3.5
    mailfrom: lyme.eater@A123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123.example.com
    result: none
  longlabel:
    description: >-
      DNS labels limited to 63 chars.
    spec: 4.3/1
    helo: mail.example.net
    host: 1.2.3.5
    mailfrom: lyme.eater@A12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012.example.com
    result: fail
  emptylabel:
    spec: 4.3/1
    helo: mail.example.net
    host: 1.2.3.5
    mailfrom: lyme.eater@A...example.com
    result: none
  helo-not-fqdn:
    spec: 4.3/1
    helo: A2345678
    host: 1.2.3.5
    mailfrom: ""
    result: none
  helo-domain-literal:
    spec: 4.3/1
    helo: "[1.2.3.5]"
    host: 1.2.3.5
    mailfrom: ""
    result: none
  nolocalpart:
    spec: 4.3/2
    helo: mail.example.net
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: '@example.net'
    result: fail
    explanation: postmaster
  domain-literal:
    spec: 4.3/1
    helo: OEMCOMPUTER
    host: 1.2.3.5
    mailfrom: "foo@[1.2.3.5]"
    result: none
zonedata:
  example.com:
    - TIMEOUT
  example.net:
    - SPF:  v=spf1 -all exp=exp.example.net
  a.example.net:
    - SPF:  v=spf1 -all exp=exp.example.net
  exp.example.net:
    - TXT:  '%{l}'
  a12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012.example.com:
    - SPF:  v=spf1 -all
---
description: Record lookup
tests:
  both:
    spec: 4.4/1
    helo: mail.example.net
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@both.example.net
    result: fail
  txtonly:
    description: Result is none if checking SPF records only.
    spec: 4.4/1
    helo: mail.example.net
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@txtonly.example.net
    result: [fail, none]
  spfonly:
    description: Result is none if checking TXT records only.
    spec: 4.4/1
    helo: mail.example.net
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@spfonly.example.net
    result: [fail, none]
  spftimeout:
    description: >-
      TXT record present, but SPF lookup times out.
      Result is temperror if checking SPF records only.
    comment: >-
      This actually happens for a popular braindead DNS server.
    spec: 4.4/1
    helo: mail.example.net
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@spftimeout.example.net
    result: [fail, temperror]
  txttimeout:
    description: >-
      SPF record present, but TXT lookup times out.
      If only TXT records are checked, result is temperror.
    spec: 4.4/1
    helo: mail.example.net
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@txttimeout.example.net
    result: [fail, temperror]
  nospftxttimeout:
    description: >-
      No SPF record present, and TXT lookup times out.
      If only TXT records are checked, result is temperror.
    comment: >-
      Because TXT records is where v=spf1 records will likely be, returning
      temperror will try again later.  A timeout due to a braindead server
      is unlikely in the case of TXT, as opposed to the newer SPF RR.
    spec: 4.4/1
    helo: mail.example.net
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@nospftxttimeout.example.net
    result: [temperror, none]
  alltimeout:
    description: Both TXT and SPF queries time out
    spec: 4.4/2
    helo: mail.example.net
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@alltimeout.example.net
    result: temperror
zonedata:
  both.example.net:
    - TXT:  v=spf1 -all
    - SPF:  v=spf1 -all
  txtonly.example.net:
    - TXT:  v=spf1 -all
  spfonly.example.net:
    - SPF:  v=spf1 -all
    - TXT:  NONE
  spftimeout.example.net:
    - TXT:  v=spf1 -all
    - TIMEOUT
  txttimeout.example.net:
    - SPF:  v=spf1 -all
    - TXT:  NONE
    - TIMEOUT
  nospftxttimeout.example.net:
    - SPF:  "v=spf3 !a:yahoo.com -all"
    - TXT:  NONE
    - TIMEOUT
  alltimeout.example.net:
    - TIMEOUT
---
description: Selecting records
tests:
  nospace1:
    description: >-
      Version must be terminated by space or end of record.  TXT pieces
      are joined without intervening spaces.
    spec: 4.5/4
    helo: mail.example1.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@example2.com
    result: none
  empty:
    description: Empty SPF record.
    spec: 4.5/4
    helo: mail1.example1.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@example1.com
    result: neutral
  nospace2:
    spec: 4.5/4
    helo: mail.example1.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@example3.com
    result: pass
  spfoverride:
    description: >-
      SPF records override TXT records.  Older implementation may
      check TXT records only.
    spec: 4.5/5
    helo: mail.example1.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@example4.com
    result: [pass, fail]
  multitxt1:
    description: >-
      Older implementations will give permerror/unknown because of
      the conflicting TXT records.  However, RFC 4408 says the SPF
      records overrides them.
    spec: 4.5/5
    helo: mail.example1.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@example5.com
    result: [pass, permerror]
  multitxt2:
    description: >-
      Multiple records is a permerror, v=spf1 is case insensitive
    spec: 4.5/6
    helo: mail.example1.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@example6.com
    result: permerror
  multispf1:
    description: >-
      Multiple records is a permerror, even when they are identical.
      However, this situation cannot be reliably reproduced with live
      DNS since cache and resolvers are allowed to combine identical
      records.
    spec: 4.5/6
    helo: mail.example1.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@example7.com
    result: [permerror, fail]
  multispf2:
    description: >-
      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
    mailfrom: foo@example8.com
    result: [permerror, pass]
  nospf:
    spec: 4.5/7
    helo: mail.example1.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@mail.example1.com
    result: none
  case-insensitive:
    description: >-
      v=spf1 is case insensitive
    spec: 4.5/6
    helo: mail.example1.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@example9.com
    result: softfail
zonedata:
  example3.com:
    - SPF:  v=spf10
    - SPF:  v=spf1 mx
    - MX:   [0, mail.example1.com]
  example1.com:
    - SPF:  v=spf1
  example2.com:
    - SPF:  ['v=spf1', 'mx']
  mail.example1.com:
    - A:    1.2.3.4
  example4.com:
    - SPF:  v=spf1 +all
    - TXT:  v=spf1 -all
  example5.com:
    - SPF:  v=spf1 +all
    - TXT:  v=spf1 -all
    - TXT:  v=spf1 +all
  example6.com:
    - TXT:  v=spf1 -all
    - TXT:  V=sPf1 +all
  example7.com:
    - SPF:  v=spf1 -all
    - SPF:  v=spf1 -all
  example8.com:
    - SPF:  V=spf1 -all
    - SPF:  v=spf1 -all
    - TXT:  v=spf1 +all
  example9.com:
    - SPF:  v=SpF1 ~all
---
description: Record evaluation
tests:
  detect-errors-anywhere:
    description: Any syntax errors anywhere in the record MUST be detected.
    spec: 4.6
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@t1.example.com
    result: permerror
  modifier-charset-good:
    description: name = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "_" / "." )
    spec: 4.6.1/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@t2.example.com
    result: pass
  modifier-charset-bad1:
    description: >-
      '=' character immediately after the name and before any ":" or "/"
    spec: 4.6.1/4
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@t3.example.com
    result: permerror
  modifier-charset-bad2:
    description: >-
      '=' character immediately after the name and before any ":" or "/"
    spec: 4.6.1/4
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@t4.example.com
    result: permerror
  redirect-after-mechanisms1:
    description: >-
      The "redirect" modifier has an effect after all the mechanisms.
    comment: >-
      The redirect in this example would violate processing limits, except
      that it is never used because of the all mechanism.
    spec: 4.6.3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@t5.example.com
    result: softfail
  redirect-after-mechanisms2:
    description: >-
      The "redirect" modifier has an effect after all the mechanisms.
    spec: 4.6.3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.5
    mailfrom: foo@t6.example.com
    result: fail
  default-result:
    description: Default result is neutral.
    spec: 4.7/1
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.5
    mailfrom: foo@t7.example.com
    result: neutral
  redirect-is-modifier:
    description: |-
      Invalid mechanism.  Redirect is a modifier.
    spec: 4.6.1/4
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@t8.example.com
    result: permerror
  invalid-domain:
    description: >-
      Domain-spec must end in macro-expand or valid toplabel.
    spec: 8.1/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@t9.example.com
    result: permerror
  invalid-domain-empty-label:
    description: >-
      Domain-spec must end in macro-expand or valid toplabel.
    comment: >-
      But anything goes before the toplabel.  Empty labels cannot be
      encoded for sending to a name server, so resolver must give error
      or empty result.  Empty result is analogous to 4.3/1, and so
      is preferred.
    spec: [8.1/2, 5/10]
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@t10.example.com
    result: [fail, temperror]
  invalid-domain-long:
    description: >-
      Domain-spec must end in macro-expand or valid toplabel.
    comment: >-
      But anything goes before the toplabel.  Upper case H macro
      url escapes the HELO string, the result is longer than 63 chars.
      Long labels cannot be coded in a DNS query packet, so resolver must
      give error or empty result.  Empty result is analogous to 4.3/1,
      and so is preferred.
    spec: [8.1/2, 5/10]
    helo: "%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@t11.example.com
    result: [fail, temperror]
zonedata:
  mail.example.com:
    - A: 1.2.3.4
  t1.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ip4:1.2.3.4 -all moo
  t2.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 moo.cow-far_out=man:dog/cat ip4:1.2.3.4 -all
  t3.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 moo.cow/far_out=man:dog/cat ip4:1.2.3.4 -all
  t4.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 moo.cow:far_out=man:dog/cat ip4:1.2.3.4 -all
  t5.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 redirect=t5.example.com ~all
  t6.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ip4:1.2.3.4 redirect=t2.example.com
  t7.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ip4:1.2.3.4
  t8.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ip4:1.2.3.4 redirect:t2.example.com
  t9.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 a:foo-bar -all
  t10.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 a:mail.example...com -all
  t11.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 a:%{H}.bar -all
---
description: ALL mechanism syntax
tests:
  all-dot:
    description: |
      all              = "all"
    comment: |-
      At least one implementation got this wrong
    spec: 5.1/1
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e1.example.com
    result: permerror
  all-arg:
    description: |
      all              = "all"
    comment: |-
      At least one implementation got this wrong
    spec: 5.1/1
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e2.example.com
    result: permerror
  all-cidr:
    description: |
      all              = "all"
    spec: 5.1/1
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e3.example.com
    result: permerror
  all-neutral:
    description: |
      all              = "all"
    spec: 5.1/1
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e4.example.com
    result: neutral
  all-double:
    description: |
      all              = "all"
    spec: 5.1/1
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e5.example.com
    result: pass
zonedata:
  mail.example.com:
    - A: 1.2.3.4
  e1.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 -all.
  e2.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 -all:foobar
  e3.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 -all/8
  e4.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ?all
  e5.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 all -all
---
description: PTR mechanism syntax
tests:
  ptr-cidr:
    description: |-
      PTR              = "ptr"    [ ":" domain-spec ]
    spec: 5.5/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e1.example.com
    result: permerror
  ptr-match-target:
    description: >-
      Check all validated domain names to see if they end in the <target-name>
      domain.
    spec: 5.5/5
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e2.example.com
    result: pass
  ptr-match-implicit:
    description: >-
      Check all validated domain names to see if they end in the <target-name>
      domain.
    spec: 5.5/5
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e3.example.com
    result: pass
  ptr-nomatch-invalid:
    description: >-
      Check all validated domain names to see if they end in the <target-name>
      domain.
    comment: >-
      This PTR record does not validate
    spec: 5.5/5
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e4.example.com
    result: fail
  ptr-match-ip6:
    description: >-
      Check all validated domain names to see if they end in the <target-name>
      domain.
    spec: 5.5/5
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: CAFE:BABE::1
    mailfrom: foo@e3.example.com
    result: pass
  ptr-empty-domain:
    description: >-
      domain-spec cannot be empty.
    spec: 5.5/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e5.example.com
    result: permerror
zonedata:
  mail.example.com:
    - A: 1.2.3.4
  e1.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ptr/0 -all
  e2.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ptr:example.com -all
  4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa:
    - PTR: e3.example.com
    - PTR: e4.example.com
    - PTR: mail.example.com
  1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.E.B.A.B.E.F.A.C.ip6.arpa:
    - PTR: e3.example.com
  e3.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ptr -all
    - A: 1.2.3.4
    - AAAA: CAFE:BABE::1
  e4.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ptr -all
  e5.example.com:
    - SPF: "v=spf1 ptr:"
---
description: A mechanism syntax
tests:
  a-cidr6:
    description: |
      A                = "a"      [ ":" domain-spec ] [ dual-cidr-length ]
      dual-cidr-length = [ ip4-cidr-length ] [ "/" ip6-cidr-length ]
    spec: 5.3/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e6.example.com
    result: fail
  a-bad-cidr4:
    description: |
      A                = "a"      [ ":" domain-spec ] [ dual-cidr-length ]
      dual-cidr-length = [ ip4-cidr-length ] [ "/" ip6-cidr-length ]
    spec: 5.3/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e6a.example.com
    result: permerror
  a-bad-cidr6:
    description: |
      A                = "a"      [ ":" domain-spec ] [ dual-cidr-length ]
      dual-cidr-length = [ ip4-cidr-length ] [ "/" ip6-cidr-length ]
    spec: 5.3/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e7.example.com
    result: permerror
  a-multi-ip1:
    description: >-
      A matches any returned IP.
    spec: 5.3/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e10.example.com
    result: pass
  a-multi-ip2:
    description: >-
      A matches any returned IP.
    spec: 5.3/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e10.example.com
    result: pass
  a-bad-domain:
    description: >-
      domain-spec must pass basic syntax checks
    comment: >-
      A ':' may appear in domain-spec, but not in top-label.
    spec: 8.1/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e9.example.com
    result: permerror
  a-nxdomain:
    description: >-
      If no ips are returned, A mechanism does not match, even with /0.
    spec: 5.3/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e1.example.com
    result: fail
  a-cidr4-0:
    description: >-
      Matches if any A records are present in DNS.
    spec: 5.3/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e2.example.com
    result: pass
  a-cidr4-0-ip6:
    description: >-
      Matches if any A records are present in DNS.
    spec: 5.3/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1234::1
    mailfrom: foo@e2.example.com
    result: fail
  a-cidr6-0-ip4:
    description: >-
      Would match if any AAAA records are present in DNS,
      but not for an IP4 connection.
    spec: 5.3/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e2a.example.com
    result: fail
  a-cidr6-0-ip4mapped:
    description: >-
      Would match if any AAAA records are present in DNS,
      but not for an IP4 connection.
    spec: 5.3/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: ::FFFF:1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e2a.example.com
    result: fail
  a-cidr6-0-ip6:
    description: >-
      Matches if any AAAA records are present in DNS.
    spec: 5.3/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1234::1
    mailfrom: foo@e2a.example.com
    result: pass
  a-cidr6-0-nxdomain:
    description: >-
      No match if no AAAA records are present in DNS.
    spec: 5.3/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1234::1
    mailfrom: foo@e2b.example.com
    result: fail
  a-null:
    description: >-
      Null not allowed in top-label.
    spec: 8.1/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.5
    mailfrom: foo@e3.example.com
    result: permerror
  a-numeric:
    description: >-
      Top-label may not be all numeric
    comment: >-
      A common publishing mistake is using ip4 addresses with A mechanism.
      This should receive special diagnostic attention in the permerror.
    spec: 8.1/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e4.example.com
    result: permerror
  a-numeric-top-label:
    description: >-
      Top-label may not be all numeric
    spec: 8.1/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    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 %
    spec: 8.1/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e11.example.com
    result: pass
  a-colon-domain-ip4mapped:
    description: >-
      Domain-spec may contain any visible char except %
    spec: 8.1/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: ::FFFF:1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e11.example.com
    result: pass
  a-bad-toplab:
    description: >-
      Toplabel may not begin with -
    spec: 8.1/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e12.example.com
    result: permerror
  a-empty-domain:
    description: >-
      domain-spec cannot be empty.
    spec: 5.3/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    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
  e1.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 a/0 -all
  e2.example.com:
    - A: 1.1.1.1
    - AAAA: 1234::2
    - SPF: v=spf1 a/0 -all
  e2a.example.com:
    - AAAA: 1234::1
    - SPF: v=spf1 a//0 -all
  e2b.example.com:
    - A: 1.1.1.1
    - SPF: v=spf1 a//0 -all
  e3.example.com:
    - SPF: "v=spf1 a:foo.example.com\0"
  e4.example.com:
    - 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:
    - SPF: v=spf1 a/33 -all
  e7.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 a//129 -all
  e9.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 a:example.com:8080
  e10.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 a:foo.example.com/24
  foo.example.com:
    - A: 1.1.1.1
    - A: 1.2.3.5
  e11.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 a:foo:bar/baz.example.com
  foo:bar/baz.example.com:
    - A: 1.2.3.4
  e12.example.com:
    - 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:
  include-fail:
    description: >-
      recursive check_host() result of fail causes include to not match.
    spec: 5.2/9
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e1.example.com
    result: softfail
  include-softfail:
    description: >-
      recursive check_host() result of softfail causes include to not match.
    spec: 5.2/9
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e2.example.com
    result: pass
  include-neutral:
    description: >-
      recursive check_host() result of neutral causes include to not match.
    spec: 5.2/9
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e3.example.com
    result: fail
  include-temperror:
    description: >-
      recursive check_host() result of temperror causes include to temperror
    spec: 5.2/9
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e4.example.com
    result: temperror
  include-permerror:
    description: >-
      recursive check_host() result of permerror causes include to permerror
    spec: 5.2/9
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e5.example.com
    result: permerror
  include-syntax-error:
    description: >-
      include          = "include"  ":" domain-spec
    spec: 5.2/1
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e6.example.com
    result: permerror
  include-cidr:
    description: >-
      include          = "include"  ":" domain-spec
    spec: 5.2/1
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e9.example.com
    result: permerror
  include-none:
    description: >-
      recursive check_host() result of none causes include to permerror
    spec: 5.2/9
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e7.example.com
    result: permerror
  include-empty-domain:
    description: >-
      domain-spec cannot be empty.
    spec: 5.2/1
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e8.example.com
    result: permerror
zonedata:
  mail.example.com:
    - A: 1.2.3.4
  ip5.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ip4:1.2.3.5 -all
  ip6.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ip4:1.2.3.6 ~all
  ip7.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ip4:1.2.3.7 ?all
  ip8.example.com:
    - TIMEOUT
  erehwon.example.com:
    - TXT: v=spfl am not an SPF record
  e1.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 include:ip5.example.com ~all
  e2.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 include:ip6.example.com all
  e3.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 include:ip7.example.com -all
  e4.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 include:ip8.example.com -all
  e5.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 include:e6.example.com -all
  e6.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 include +all
  e7.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 include:erehwon.example.com -all
  e8.example.com:
    - SPF: "v=spf1 include: -all"
  e9.example.com:
    - SPF: "v=spf1 include:ip5.example.com/24 -all"
---
description: MX mechanism syntax
tests:
  mx-cidr6:
    description: |
      MX                = "mx"      [ ":" domain-spec ] [ dual-cidr-length ]
      dual-cidr-length = [ ip4-cidr-length ] [ "/" ip6-cidr-length ]
    spec: 5.4/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e6.example.com
    result: fail
  mx-bad-cidr4:
    description: |
      MX                = "mx"      [ ":" domain-spec ] [ dual-cidr-length ]
      dual-cidr-length = [ ip4-cidr-length ] [ "/" ip6-cidr-length ]
    spec: 5.4/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e6a.example.com
    result: permerror
  mx-bad-cidr6:
    description: |
      MX                = "mx"      [ ":" domain-spec ] [ dual-cidr-length ]
      dual-cidr-length = [ ip4-cidr-length ] [ "/" ip6-cidr-length ]
    spec: 5.4/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e7.example.com
    result: permerror
  mx-multi-ip1:
    description: >-
      MX matches any returned IP.
    spec: 5.4/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e10.example.com
    result: pass
  mx-multi-ip2:
    description: >-
      MX matches any returned IP.
    spec: 5.4/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e10.example.com
    result: pass
  mx-bad-domain:
    description: >-
      domain-spec must pass basic syntax checks
    comment: >-
      A ':' may appear in domain-spec, but not in top-label.
    spec: 8.1/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e9.example.com
    result: permerror
  mx-nxdomain:
    description: >-
      If no ips are returned, MX mechanism does not match, even with /0.
    spec: 5.4/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e1.example.com
    result: fail
  mx-cidr4-0:
    description: >-
      Matches if any A records for any MX records are present in DNS.
    spec: 5.4/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e2.example.com
    result: pass
  mx-cidr4-0-ip6:
    description: >-
      Matches if any A records for any MX records are present in DNS.
    spec: 5.4/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1234::1
    mailfrom: foo@e2.example.com
    result: fail
  mx-cidr6-0-ip4:
    description: >-
      Would match if any AAAA records for MX records are present in DNS,
      but not for an IP4 connection.
    spec: 5.4/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e2a.example.com
    result: fail
  mx-cidr6-0-ip4mapped:
    description: >-
      Would match if any AAAA records for MX records are present in DNS,
      but not for an IP4 connection.
    spec: 5.4/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: ::FFFF:1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e2a.example.com
    result: fail
  mx-cidr6-0-ip6:
    description: >-
      Matches if any AAAA records for any MX records are present in DNS.
    spec: 5.3/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1234::1
    mailfrom: foo@e2a.example.com
    result: pass
  mx-cidr6-0-nxdomain:
    description: >-
      No match if no AAAA records for any MX records are present in DNS.
    spec: 5.4/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1234::1
    mailfrom: foo@e2b.example.com
    result: fail
  mx-null:
    description: >-
      Null not allowed in top-label.
    spec: 8.1/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.5
    mailfrom: foo@e3.example.com
    result: permerror
  mx-numeric-top-label:
    description: >-
      Top-label may not be all numeric
    spec: 8.1/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e5.example.com
    result: permerror
  mx-colon-domain:
    description: >-
      Domain-spec may contain any visible char except %
    spec: 8.1/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e11.example.com
    result: pass
  mx-colon-domain-ip4mapped:
    description: >-
      Domain-spec may contain any visible char except %
    spec: 8.1/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: ::FFFF:1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e11.example.com
    result: pass
  mx-bad-toplab:
    description: >-
      Toplabel may not begin with -
    spec: 8.1/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e12.example.com
    result: permerror
  mx-empty:
    description: >-
      test null MX
    comment: >-
      Some implementations have had trouble with null MX
    spec: 5.4/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: ""
    result: neutral
  mx-implicit:
    description: >-
      If the target name has no MX records, check_host() MUST NOT pretend the
      target is its single MX, and MUST NOT default to an A lookup on the
      target-name directly.
    spec: 5.4/4
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e4.example.com
    result: neutral
  mx-empty-domain:
    description: >-
      domain-spec cannot be empty.
    spec: 5.2/1
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e13.example.com
    result: permerror
zonedata:
  mail.example.com:
    - A: 1.2.3.4
    - MX: [0, ""]
    - SPF: v=spf1 mx
  e1.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 mx/0 -all
    - MX: [0, e1.example.com]
  e2.example.com:
    - A: 1.1.1.1
    - AAAA: 1234::2
    - MX: [0, e2.example.com]
    - SPF: v=spf1 mx/0 -all
  e2a.example.com:
    - AAAA: 1234::1
    - MX: [0, e2a.example.com]
    - SPF: v=spf1 mx//0 -all
  e2b.example.com:
    - A: 1.1.1.1
    - MX: [0, e2b.example.com]
    - SPF: v=spf1 mx//0 -all
  e3.example.com:
    - SPF: "v=spf1 mx:foo.example.com\0"
  e4.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 mx
    - A: 1.2.3.4
  e5.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 mx:abc.123
  e6.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 mx//33 -all
  e6a.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 mx/33 -all
  e7.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 mx//129 -all
  e9.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 mx:example.com:8080
  e10.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 mx:foo.example.com/24
  foo.example.com:
    - MX: [0, foo1.example.com]
  foo1.example.com:
    - A: 1.1.1.1
    - A: 1.2.3.5
  e11.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 mx:foo:bar/baz.example.com
  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
  e13.example.com:
    - SPF: "v=spf1 mx: -all"
---
description: EXISTS mechanism syntax
tests:
  exists-empty-domain:
    description: >-
      domain-spec cannot be empty.
    spec: 5.7/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e1.example.com
    result: permerror
  exists-implicit:
    description: >-
      exists           = "exists"   ":" domain-spec
    spec: 5.7/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e2.example.com
    result: permerror
  exists-cidr:
    description: >-
      exists           = "exists"   ":" domain-spec
    spec: 5.7/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e3.example.com
    result: permerror
zonedata:
  mail.example.com:
    - A: 1.2.3.4
  e1.example.com:
    - SPF: "v=spf1 exists:"
  e2.example.com:
    - SPF: "v=spf1 exists"
  e3.example.com:
    - SPF: "v=spf1 exists:mail.example.com/24"
---
description: IP4 mechanism syntax
tests:
  cidr4-0:
    description: >-
      ip4-cidr-length  = "/" 1*DIGIT
    spec: 5.6/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e1.example.com
    result: pass
  cidr4-32:
    description: >-
      ip4-cidr-length  = "/" 1*DIGIT
    spec: 5.6/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e2.example.com
    result: pass
  cidr4-33:
    description: >-
      Invalid CIDR should get permerror.
    comment: >-
      The RFC is silent on ip4 CIDR > 32 or ip6 CIDR > 128.  However,
      since there is no reasonable interpretation (except a noop), we have
      read between the lines to see a prohibition on invalid CIDR.
    spec: 5.6/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e3.example.com
    result: permerror
  cidr4-032:
    description: >-
      Invalid CIDR should get permerror.
    comment: >-
      Leading zeros are not explicitly prohibited by the RFC. However,
      since the RFC explicity prohibits leading zeros in ip4-network,
      our interpretation is that CIDR should be also.
    spec: 5.6/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e4.example.com
    result: permerror
  bare-ip4:
    description: >-
      IP4              = "ip4"      ":" ip4-network   [ ip4-cidr-length ]
    spec: 5.6/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e5.example.com
    result: permerror
  bad-ip4-port:
    description: >-
      IP4              = "ip4"      ":" ip4-network   [ ip4-cidr-length ]
    comment: >-
      This has actually been published in SPF records.
    spec: 5.6/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e8.example.com
    result: permerror
  bad-ip4-short:
    description: >-
      It is not permitted to omit parts of the IP address instead of
      using CIDR notations.
    spec: 5.6/4
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e9.example.com
    result: permerror
  ip4-dual-cidr:
    description: >-
      dual-cidr-length not permitted on ip4
    spec: 5.6/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e6.example.com
    result: permerror
  ip4-mapped-ip6:
    description: >-
      IP4 mapped IP6 connections MUST be treated as IP4
    spec: 5/9/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: ::FFFF:1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e7.example.com
    result: fail
zonedata:
  mail.example.com:
    - A: 1.2.3.4
  e1.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ip4:1.1.1.1/0 -all
  e2.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ip4:1.2.3.4/32 -all
  e3.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ip4:1.2.3.4/33 -all
  e4.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ip4:1.2.3.4/032 -all
  e5.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ip4
  e6.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ip4:1.2.3.4//32
  e7.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 -ip4:1.2.3.4 ip6:::FFFF:1.2.3.4
  e8.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ip4:1.2.3.4:8080
  e9.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ip4:1.2.3
---
description: IP6 mechanism syntax
comment: >-
  IP4 only implementations may skip tests where host is not IP4
tests:
  bare-ip6:
    description: >-
      IP6              = "ip6"      ":" ip6-network   [ ip6-cidr-length ]
    spec: 5.6/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e1.example.com
    result: permerror
  cidr6-0-ip4:
    description: >-
      IP4 connections do not match ip6.
    comment: >-
      There is controversy over ip4 mapped connections.  RFC4408 clearly
      requires such connections to be considered as ip4.  However,
      some interpret the RFC to mean that such connections should *also*
      match appropriate ip6 mechanisms (but not, inexplicably, A or MX
      mechanisms).  Until there is consensus, both
      results are acceptable.
    spec: 5/9/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e2.example.com
    result: [neutral, pass]
  cidr6-ip4:
    description: >-
      Even if the SMTP connection is via IPv6, an IPv4-mapped IPv6 IP address
      (see RFC 3513, Section 2.5.5) MUST still be considered an IPv4 address.
    comment: >-
      There is controversy over ip4 mapped connections.  RFC4408 clearly
      requires such connections to be considered as ip4.  However,
      some interpret the RFC to mean that such connections should *also*
      match appropriate ip6 mechanisms (but not, inexplicably, A or MX
      mechanisms).  Until there is consensus, both
      results are acceptable.
    spec: 5/9/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: ::FFFF:1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e2.example.com
    result: [neutral, pass]
  cidr6-0:
    description: >-
      Match any IP6
    spec: 5/8
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: DEAF:BABE::CAB:FEE
    mailfrom: foo@e2.example.com
    result: pass
  cidr6-129:
    description: >-
      Invalid CIDR
    comment: >-
      IP4 only implementations MUST fully syntax check all mechanisms,
      even if they otherwise ignore them.
    spec: 5.6/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e3.example.com
    result: permerror
  cidr6-bad:
    description: >-
      dual-cidr syntax not used for ip6
    comment: >-
      IP4 only implementations MUST fully syntax check all mechanisms,
      even if they otherwise ignore them.
    spec: 5.6/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e4.example.com
    result: permerror
  cidr6-33:
    description: >-
      make sure ip4 cidr restriction are not used for ip6
    spec: 5.6/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: "CAFE:BABE:8000::"
    mailfrom: foo@e5.example.com
    result: pass
  cidr6-33-ip4:
    description: >-
      make sure ip4 cidr restriction are not used for ip6
    spec: 5.6/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e5.example.com
    result: neutral
  ip6-bad1:
    description: >-
    spec: 5.6/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e6.example.com
    result: permerror
zonedata:
  mail.example.com:
    - A: 1.2.3.4
  e1.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 -all ip6
  e2.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ip6:::1.1.1.1/0
  e3.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ip6:::1.1.1.1/129
  e4.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ip6:::1.1.1.1//33
  e5.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ip6:CAFE:BABE:8000::/33
  e6.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ip6::CAFE::BABE
---
description: Semantics of exp and other modifiers
comment: >-
  Implementing exp= is optional.  If not implemented, the test driver should
  not check the explanation field.
tests:
  redirect-none:
    description: >-
      If no SPF record is found, or if the target-name is malformed, the result
      is a "PermError" rather than "None".
    spec: 6.1/4
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e10.example.com
    result: permerror
  redirect-cancels-exp:
    description: >-
      when executing "redirect", exp= from the original domain MUST NOT be used.
    spec: 6.2/13
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e1.example.com
    result: fail
    explanation: DEFAULT
  redirect-syntax-error:
    description: |
      redirect      = "redirect" "=" domain-spec
    comment: >-
      A literal application of the grammar causes modifier syntax
      errors (except for macro syntax) to become unknown-modifier.
      
        modifier = explanation | redirect | unknown-modifier
      
      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 erratum.
    spec: 6.1/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e17.example.com
    result: permerror
  include-ignores-exp:
    description: >-
      when executing "include", exp= from the target domain MUST NOT be used.
    spec: 6.2/13
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e7.example.com
    result: fail
    explanation: Correct!
  redirect-cancels-prior-exp:
    description: >-
      when executing "redirect", exp= from the original domain MUST NOT be used.
    spec: 6.2/13
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e3.example.com
    result: fail
    explanation: See me.
  invalid-modifier:
    description: |
      unknown-modifier = name "=" macro-string
      name             = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "_" / "." )
    comment: >-
      Unknown modifier name must begin with alpha.
    spec: A/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e5.example.com
    result: permerror
  empty-modifier-name:
    description: |
      name             = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "_" / "." )
    comment: >-
      Unknown modifier name must not be empty.
    spec: A/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e6.example.com
    result: permerror
  dorky-sentinel:
    description: >-
      An implementation that uses a legal expansion as a sentinel.  We
      cannot check them all, but we can check this one.
    comment: >-
      Spaces are allowed in local-part.
    spec: 8.1/6
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: "Macro Error@e8.example.com"
    result: fail
    explanation: Macro Error in implementation
  exp-multiple-txt:
    description: |
      Ignore exp if multiple TXT records.
    comment: >-
      If domain-spec is empty, or there are any DNS processing errors (any
      RCODE other than 0), or if no records are 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.
    spec: 6.2/4
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e11.example.com
    result: fail
    explanation: DEFAULT
  exp-no-txt:
    description: |
      Ignore exp if no TXT records.
    comment: >-
      If domain-spec is empty, or there are any DNS processing errors (any
      RCODE other than 0), or if no records are 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.
    spec: 6.2/4
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e22.example.com
    result: fail
    explanation: DEFAULT
  exp-dns-error:
    description: |
      Ignore exp if DNS error.
    comment: >-
      If domain-spec is empty, or there are any DNS processing errors (any
      RCODE other than 0), or if no records are 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.
    spec: 6.2/4
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e21.example.com
    result: fail
    explanation: DEFAULT
  exp-empty-domain:
    description: |
      PermError if exp= domain-spec is empty.
    comment: >-
      Section 6.2/4 says, "If domain-spec is empty, or there are any DNS
      processing errors (any RCODE other than 0), or if no records are
      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 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
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e12.example.com
    result: permerror
  explanation-syntax-error:
    description: |
      Ignore exp if the explanation string has a syntax error.
    comment: >-
      If domain-spec is empty, or there are any DNS processing errors (any
      RCODE other than 0), or if no records are 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.
    spec: 6.2/4
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e13.example.com
    result: fail
    explanation: DEFAULT
  exp-syntax-error:
    description: |
      explanation      = "exp" "=" domain-spec
    comment: >-
      A literal application of the grammar causes modifier syntax
      errors (except for macro syntax) to become unknown-modifier.
      
        modifier = explanation | redirect | unknown-modifier
      
      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 erratum.
    spec: 6.2/1
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e16.example.com
    result: permerror
  exp-twice:
    description: |
      exp= appears twice.
    comment: >-
      These two modifiers (exp,redirect) MUST NOT appear in a record more than
      once each. If they do, then check_host() exits with a result of
      "PermError".
    spec: 6/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e14.example.com
    result: permerror
  redirect-empty-domain:
    description: |
      redirect = "redirect" "=" domain-spec
    comment: >-
      Unlike for exp, there is no instruction to override the permerror
      for an empty domain-spec (which is invalid syntax).
    spec: 6.2/4
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e18.example.com
    result: permerror
  redirect-twice:
    description: |
      redirect= appears twice.
    comment: >-
      These two modifiers (exp,redirect) MUST NOT appear in a record more than
      once each. If they do, then check_host() exits with a result of
      "PermError".
    spec: 6/2
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e15.example.com
    result: permerror
  unknown-modifier-syntax:
    description: |
      unknown-modifier = name "=" macro-string
    comment: >-
      Unknown modifiers must have valid macro syntax.
    spec: A/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e9.example.com
    result: permerror
  default-modifier-obsolete:
    description: |
      Unknown modifiers do not modify the RFC SPF result.
    comment: >-
      Some implementations may have a leftover default= modifier from
      earlier drafts.
    spec: 6/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e19.example.com
    result: neutral
  default-modifier-obsolete2:
    description: |
      Unknown modifiers do not modify the RFC SPF result.
    comment: >-
      Some implementations may have a leftover default= modifier from
      earlier drafts.
    spec: 6/3
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e20.example.com
    result: neutral
zonedata:
  mail.example.com:
    - A: 1.2.3.4
  e1.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 exp=exp1.example.com redirect=e2.example.com
  e2.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 -all
  e3.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 exp=exp1.example.com redirect=e4.example.com
  e4.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 -all exp=exp2.example.com
  exp1.example.com:
    - TXT: No-see-um
  exp2.example.com:
    - TXT: See me.
  exp3.example.com:
    - TXT: Correct!
  exp4.example.com:
    - TXT: "%{l} in implementation"
  e5.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 1up=foo
  e6.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 =all
  e7.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 include:e3.example.com -all exp=exp3.example.com
  e8.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 -all exp=exp4.example.com
  e9.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 -all foo=%abc
  e10.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 redirect=erehwon.example.com
  e11.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 -all exp=e11msg.example.com
  e11msg.example.com:
    - TXT: Answer a fool according to his folly.
    - TXT: Do not answer a fool according to his folly.
  e12.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 exp= -all
  e13.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 exp=e13msg.example.com -all
  e13msg.example.com:
    - TXT: The %{x}-files.
  e14.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 exp=e13msg.example.com -all exp=e11msg.example.com
  e15.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 redirect=e12.example.com -all redirect=e12.example.com
  e16.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 exp=-all
  e17.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 redirect=-all ?all
  e18.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ?all redirect=
  e19.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 default=pass
  e20.example.com:
    - SPF: "v=spf1 default=+"
  e21.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 exp=e21msg.example.com -all
  e21msg.example.com:
    - TIMEOUT
  e22.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 exp=mail.example.com -all
---
description: Macro expansion rules
tests:
  trailing-dot-domain:
    spec: 8.1/16
    description: >-
      trailing dot is ignored for domains
    helo: msgbas2x.cos.example.com
    host: 192.168.218.40
    mailfrom: test@example.com
    result: pass
  trailing-dot-exp:
    spec: 8.1
    description: >-
      trailing dot is not removed from explanation
    comment: >-
      A simple way for an implementation to ignore trailing dots on
      domains is to remove it when present.  But be careful not to
      remove it for explanation text.
    helo: msgbas2x.cos.example.com
    host: 192.168.218.40
    mailfrom: test@exp.example.com
    result: fail
    explanation: This is a test.
  exp-only-macro-char:
    spec: 8.1/8
    description: >-
      The following macro letters are allowed only in "exp" text: c, r, t
    helo: msgbas2x.cos.example.com
    host: 192.168.218.40
    mailfrom: test@e2.example.com
    result: permerror
  invalid-macro-char:
    spec: 8.1/9
    description: >-
      A '%' character not followed by a '{', '%', '-', or '_' character
      is a syntax error.
    helo: msgbas2x.cos.example.com
    host: 192.168.218.40
    mailfrom: test@e1.example.com
    result: permerror
  exp-txt-macro-char:
    spec: 8.1/20
    description: >-
      For IPv4 addresses, both the "i" and "c" macros expand
      to the standard dotted-quad format.
    helo: msgbas2x.cos.example.com
    host: 192.168.218.40
    mailfrom: test@e3.example.com
    result: fail
    explanation: Connections from 192.168.218.40 not authorized.
  domain-name-truncation:
    spec: 8.1/25
    description: >-
      When the result of macro expansion is used in a domain name query, if the
      expanded domain name exceeds 253 characters, the left side is truncated
      to fit, by removing successive domain labels until the total length does
      not exceed 253 characters.
    helo: msgbas2x.cos.example.com
    host: 192.168.218.40
    mailfrom: test@somewhat.long.exp.example.com
    result: fail
    explanation: Congratulations!  That was tricky.
  v-macro-ip4:
    spec: 8.1/6
    description: |-
      v = the string "in-addr" if <ip> is ipv4, or "ip6" if <ip> is ipv6
    helo: msgbas2x.cos.example.com
    host: 192.168.218.40
    mailfrom: test@e4.example.com
    result: fail
    explanation: 192.168.218.40 is queried as 40.218.168.192.in-addr.arpa
  v-macro-ip6:
    spec: 8.1/6
    description: |-
      v = the string "in-addr" if <ip> is ipv4, or "ip6" if <ip> is ipv6
    helo: msgbas2x.cos.example.com
    host: CAFE:BABE::1
    mailfrom: test@e4.example.com
    result: fail
    explanation: cafe:babe::1 is queried as 1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.E.B.A.B.E.F.A.C.ip6.arpa
  undef-macro:
    spec: 8.1/6
    description: >-
      Allowed macros chars are 'slodipvh' plus 'crt' in explanation.
    helo: msgbas2x.cos.example.com
    host: CAFE:BABE::192.168.218.40
    mailfrom: test@e5.example.com
    result: permerror
  p-macro-ip4-novalid:
    spec: 8.1/22
    description: |-
      p = the validated domain name of <ip>
    comment: >-
      The PTR in this example does not validate.
    helo: msgbas2x.cos.example.com
    host: 192.168.218.40
    mailfrom: test@e6.example.com
    result: fail
    explanation: connect from unknown
  p-macro-ip4-valid:
    spec: 8.1/22
    description: |-
      p = the validated domain name of <ip>
    comment: >-
      If a subdomain of the <domain> is present, it SHOULD be used.
    helo: msgbas2x.cos.example.com
    host: 192.168.218.41
    mailfrom: test@e6.example.com
    result: fail
    explanation: connect from mx.example.com
  p-macro-ip6-novalid:
    spec: 8.1/22
    description: |-
      p = the validated domain name of <ip>
    comment: >-
      The PTR in this example does not validate.
    helo: msgbas2x.cos.example.com
    host: CAFE:BABE::1
    mailfrom: test@e6.example.com
    result: fail
    explanation: connect from unknown
  p-macro-ip6-valid:
    spec: 8.1/22
    description: |-
      p = the validated domain name of <ip>
    comment: >-
      If a subdomain of the <domain> is present, it SHOULD be used.
    helo: msgbas2x.cos.example.com
    host: CAFE:BABE::3
    mailfrom: test@e6.example.com
    result: fail
    explanation: connect from mx.example.com
  p-macro-multiple:
    spec: 8.1/22
    description: |-
      p = the validated domain name of <ip>
    comment: >-
      If a subdomain of the <domain> is present, it SHOULD be used.
    helo: msgbas2x.cos.example.com
    host: 192.168.218.42
    mailfrom: test@e7.example.com
    result: [pass, softfail]
  upper-macro:
    spec: 8.1/26
    description: >-
      Uppercased macros expand exactly as their lowercased equivalents,
      and are then URL escaped.
    helo: msgbas2x.cos.example.com
    host: 192.168.218.42
    mailfrom: jack&jill=up@e8.example.com
    result: fail
    explanation: http://example.com/why.html?l=jack%26jill%3Dup
  hello-macro:
    spec: 8.1/6
    description: |-
      h = HELO/EHLO domain
    helo: msgbas2x.cos.example.com
    host: 192.168.218.40
    mailfrom: test@e9.example.com
    result: pass
  invalid-hello-macro:
    spec: 8.1/2
    description: |-
      h = HELO/EHLO domain, but HELO is invalid
    comment: >-
      Domain-spec must end in either a macro, or a valid toplabel.
      It is not correct to check syntax after macro expansion.
    helo: "JUMPIN' JUPITER"
    host: 192.168.218.40
    mailfrom: test@e9.example.com
    result: fail
  hello-domain-literal:
    spec: 8.1/2
    description: |-
      h = HELO/EHLO domain, but HELO is a domain literal
    comment: >-
      Domain-spec must end in either a macro, or a valid toplabel.
      It is not correct to check syntax after macro expansion.
    helo: "[192.168.218.40]"
    host: 192.168.218.40
    mailfrom: test@e9.example.com
    result: fail
  require-valid-helo:
    spec: 8.1/6
    description: >-
      Example of requiring valid helo in sender policy.  This is a complex
      policy testing several points at once.
    helo: OEMCOMPUTER
    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
  a.spf.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 include:o.spf.example.com. ~all
  o.spf.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ip4:192.168.218.40
  msgbas2x.cos.example.com:
    - A: 192.168.218.40
  example.com:
    - A: 192.168.90.76
    - SPF: v=spf1 redirect=%{d}.d.spf.example.com.
  exp.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 exp=msg.example.com. -all
  msg.example.com:
    - TXT: This is a test.
  e1.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 -exists:%(ir).sbl.example.com ?all
  e2.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 -all exp=%{r}.example.com
  e3.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 -all exp=%{ir}.example.com
  40.218.168.192.example.com:
    - TXT: Connections from %{c} not authorized.
  somewhat.long.exp.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 -all exp=foobar.%{o}.%{o}.%{o}.%{o}.%{o}.%{o}.%{o}.%{o}.example.com
  somewhat.long.exp.example.com.somewhat.long.exp.example.com.somewhat.long.exp.example.com.somewhat.long.exp.example.com.somewhat.long.exp.example.com.somewhat.long.exp.example.com.somewhat.long.exp.example.com.somewhat.long.exp.example.com.example.com:
    - TXT: Congratulations!  That was tricky.
  e4.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 -all exp=e4msg.example.com
  e4msg.example.com:
    - TXT: "%{c} is queried as %{ir}.%{v}.arpa"
  e5.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 a:%{a}.example.com -all
  e6.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 -all exp=e6msg.example.com
  e6msg.example.com:
    - TXT: "connect from %{p}"
  mx.example.com:
    - A: 192.168.218.41
    - A: 192.168.218.42
    - AAAA: CAFE:BABE::2
    - AAAA: CAFE:BABE::3
  40.218.168.192.in-addr.arpa:
    - PTR: mx.example.com
  41.218.168.192.in-addr.arpa:
    - PTR: mx.example.com
  42.218.168.192.in-addr.arpa:
    - PTR: mx.example.com
    - PTR: mx.e7.example.com
  1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.E.B.A.B.E.F.A.C.ip6.arpa:
    - PTR: mx.example.com
  3.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.E.B.A.B.E.F.A.C.ip6.arpa:
    - PTR: mx.example.com
  mx.e7.example.com:
    - A: 192.168.218.42
  mx.e7.example.com.should.example.com:
    - A: 127.0.0.2
  mx.example.com.ok.example.com:
    - A: 127.0.0.2
  e7.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 exists:%{p}.should.example.com ~exists:%{p}.ok.example.com
  e8.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 -all exp=msg8.%{D2}
  msg8.example.com:
    - TXT: "http://example.com/why.html?l=%{L}"
  e9.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 a:%{H} -all
  e10.example.com:
    - 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:
  redirect-loop:
    description: >-
      SPF implementations MUST limit the number of mechanisms and modifiers
      that do DNS lookups to at most 10 per SPF check.
    spec: 10.1/6
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e1.example.com
    result: permerror
  include-loop:
    description: >-
      SPF implementations MUST limit the number of mechanisms and modifiers
      that do DNS lookups to at most 10 per SPF check.
    spec: 10.1/6
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e2.example.com
    result: permerror
  mx-limit:
    description: >-
      there MUST be a limit of no more than 10 MX looked up and checked.
    comment: >-
      The required result for this test was the subject of much
      controversy.  Many felt that the RFC *should* have specified
      permerror, but the consensus was that it failed to actually do so.
      The preferred result reflects evaluating the 10 allowed MX records in the
      order returned by the test data - or sorted via priority.
      If testing with live DNS, the MX order may be random, and a pass
      result would still be compliant.  The SPF result is effectively
      random.
    spec: 10.1/7
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.5
    mailfrom: foo@e4.example.com
    result: [neutral, pass]
  ptr-limit:
    description: >-
      there MUST be a limit of no more than 10 PTR looked up and checked.
    comment: >-
      The result of this test cannot be permerror not only because the
      RFC does not specify it, but because the sender has no control over
      the PTR records of spammers.
      The preferred result reflects evaluating the 10 allowed PTR records in
      the order returned by the test data.
      If testing with live DNS, the PTR order may be random, and a pass
      result would still be compliant.  The SPF result is effectively
      randomized.
    spec: 10.1/7
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.5
    mailfrom: foo@e5.example.com
    result: [neutral, pass]
  false-a-limit:
    description: >-
      unlike MX, PTR, there is no RR limit for A
    comment: >-
      There seems to be a tendency for developers to want to limit
      A RRs in addition to MX and PTR.  These are IPs, not usable for
      3rd party DoS attacks, and hence need no low limit.
    spec: 10.1/7
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.12
    mailfrom: foo@e10.example.com
    result: pass
  mech-at-limit:
    description: >-
      SPF implementations MUST limit the number of mechanisms and modifiers
      that do DNS lookups to at most 10 per SPF check.
    spec: 10.1/6
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e6.example.com
    result: pass
  mech-over-limit:
    description: >-
      SPF implementations MUST limit the number of mechanisms and modifiers
      that do DNS lookups to at most 10 per SPF check.
    comment: >-
      We do not check whether an implementation counts mechanisms before
      or after evaluation.  The RFC is not clear on this.
    spec: 10.1/6
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e7.example.com
    result: permerror
  include-at-limit:
    description: >-
      SPF implementations MUST limit the number of mechanisms and modifiers
      that do DNS lookups to at most 10 per SPF check.
    comment: >-
      The part of the RFC that talks about MAY parse the entire record first
      (4.6) is specific to syntax errors.  Processing limits is a different,
      non-syntax issue.  Processing limits (10.1) specifically talks about
      limits during a check.
    spec: 10.1/6
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e8.example.com
    result: pass
  include-over-limit:
    description: >-
      SPF implementations MUST limit the number of mechanisms and modifiers
      that do DNS lookups to at most 10 per SPF check.
    spec: 10.1/6
    helo: mail.example.com
    host: 1.2.3.4
    mailfrom: foo@e9.example.com
    result: permerror
zonedata:
  mail.example.com:
    - A: 1.2.3.4
  e1.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ip4:1.1.1.1 redirect=e1.example.com
  e2.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 include:e3.example.com
  e3.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 include:e2.example.com
  e4.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 mx
    - MX: [0, mail.example.com]
    - MX: [1, mail.example.com]
    - MX: [2, mail.example.com]
    - MX: [3, mail.example.com]
    - MX: [4, mail.example.com]
    - MX: [5, mail.example.com]
    - MX: [6, mail.example.com]
    - MX: [7, mail.example.com]
    - MX: [8, mail.example.com]
    - MX: [9, mail.example.com]
    - MX: [10, e4.example.com]
    - A: 1.2.3.5
  e5.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 ptr
    - A: 1.2.3.5
  5.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa:
    - PTR: e1.example.com.
    - PTR: e2.example.com.
    - PTR: e3.example.com.
    - PTR: e4.example.com.
    - PTR: example.com.
    - PTR: e6.example.com.
    - PTR: e7.example.com.
    - PTR: e8.example.com.
    - PTR: e9.example.com.
    - PTR: e10.example.com.
    - PTR: e5.example.com.
  e6.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 a mx a mx a mx a mx a ptr ip4:1.2.3.4 -all
  e7.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 a mx a mx a mx a mx a ptr a ip4:1.2.3.4 -all
  e8.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 a include:inc.example.com ip4:1.2.3.4 mx -all
  inc.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 a a a a a a a a
  e9.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 a include:inc.example.com a ip4:1.2.3.4 -all
  e10.example.com:
    - SPF: v=spf1 a -all
    - A: 1.2.3.1
    - A: 1.2.3.2
    - A: 1.2.3.3
    - A: 1.2.3.4
    - A: 1.2.3.5
    - A: 1.2.3.6
    - A: 1.2.3.7
    - A: 1.2.3.8
    - A: 1.2.3.9
    - A: 1.2.3.10
    - A: 1.2.3.11
    - A: 1.2.3.12