You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm attempting to parse an SPF record that is longer than 255 characters which results which in a SourceLengthExceeded error.
I'm not sure this error should be triggered here. RFC 7208 section 3.3 says:
TXT records containing multiple strings are useful in constructing
records that would exceed the 255-octet maximum length of a
character-string within a single TXT record.
I'm guessing that the TXT record length limit is where the 255 number comes from, but section 3.4 says:
3.4 Record Size
The published SPF record for a given domain name SHOULD remain small
enough that the results of a query for it will fit within 512 octets.
Otherwise, there is a possibility of exceeding a DNS protocol limit.
It feels like the string length here should be increased to at least 512 characters, even then, it's only a SHOULD and some DNS implementations could be returning more characters.
Does a length check need to exist here at all? Perhaps a warning about the potential record lengths in the documentation is enough, with links to what the RFC has to say on the matter.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Based on Issue #2. I have increased MAX_SPF_STRING_LENGTH from 255
to 512.
I will also consider making this simply a warning in the documentation
if not in actual code.
chore(error): Update error string for MAX_SPF
Hi,
I'm attempting to parse an SPF record that is longer than 255 characters which results which in a
SourceLengthExceeded
error.I'm not sure this error should be triggered here. RFC 7208 section 3.3 says:
I'm guessing that the TXT record length limit is where the 255 number comes from, but section 3.4 says:
It feels like the string length here should be increased to at least 512 characters, even then, it's only a
SHOULD
and some DNS implementations could be returning more characters.Does a length check need to exist here at all? Perhaps a warning about the potential record lengths in the documentation is enough, with links to what the RFC has to say on the matter.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: