
spf at subtropolix
Aug 10, 2007, 10:08 AM
Post #6 of 7
(1929 views)
Permalink
|
Thanks, everyone, for the quick responses. I guess my n00bness is showing because i had completely the wrong idea about what was going on. Or, i think i did. Michael Breton wrote: > ...because they have an SPF record, you could use the "include:" > mechanism to add it to your own SPF record. If you did that, your > SPF record would look like this: > > v=spf1 ip4:69.55.229.112 include:sypatico.ca -all > > Keep in mind that in using the Sympatico SPF record within your > record, you are allowing email sent from any Sympatico.ca server and > all of the servers that send hotmail.com emails to send using your > domain name, and they would receive an SPF pass. I am using sympatico's server for outgoing mail. So, i could remove the problem entirely by using my own MTA as the outgoing server. I'd wanted to avoid using it for outgoing but maybe it'd be best. I had run into a similar problem a few months ago. I also host the domain for a client and, after getting SPF records set up, we found that it introduced another problem for them. The ISP for their office is videotron.ca and when someone responded to a mail sent to their office they received a bounce. I queried this list and came up with the following solution for *their* SPF record: quebec-elan.org IN TXT v=spf1 ip4:69.55.229.112 include:videotron.ca -all quebec-elan.org IN TXT spf2.0/pra ip4:69.55.229.112 include:videotron.ca -all That seemed to fix the problem. But, in light of the above, i'm wondering if i've done something stupid. Steve Yates wrote: > One can alleviate this somewhat by adding a "?": > > v=spf1 ip4:69.55.229.112 ?include:sypatico.ca -all > > ...which says to treat all those servers as Neutral ("?") not Pass or > Fail. So, i'm wondering if i should change the one for quebec-elan.org to the same format. SonicFog wrote: > On a side note to what Scott has just told you please be advised that > your Sender ID policy("v=spf2.0/pra ip4:69.55.229.112 ?all") is not > in correct format and therefore serves no useful purpose. This should > be fixed or removed from your DNS zone. > > See: http://www.openspf.org/SPF_vs_Sender_ID Ugh! Yeah, i've been on this carnival ride before. FWIW, Scott K. sent this reply about SPF2.0 some time ago: > If you bother with a SenderID record, publish spf2.0/pra. No one looks at the > SPF2.0 mailfrom scope AFAIK. They can live side by side in separate TXT > records. Maybe i misunderstood, then. What would be the correct format? My apologies if i seem thick. I'd be the first to admit i'm no mail guru. My setup is simply for my domain plus the one client only. I've been able to get Postfix & Cyrus IMAP up and running without acting as an open relay and everything has been running quite smoothly. But this SPF stuff has me vexed. I certainly like the concept but i still haven't been able to grok it completely. brian ------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-help/current/ or http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/help/ (easier to search) To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311530&id_secret=30733979-a564a2 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
|