> On May 15, 2017, at 9:34 AM, D'Arcy Cain <da...@vex.net> wrote: > > I tried sending this a few days ago but it doesn't appear to be arriving. > Trying again. Apologies if you see this twice. > > I am finding that lately there are a lot of reports of failures sending to us > due to SPF failures. Is anyone else seeing this? When I investigate I can > see the obvious errors in the record. Are admins getting dumber or is the > software (py-policyd in our case) getting tougher? What do others think is > best practice? Should we treat broken SPF records as if there was no record > and just not check the sending server? Not sure how to do that but hopefully > there is a switch for that in the configuration. > > My personal preference is to just bounce it and make them fix their records > but it is becoming a support problem because the senders are not reading the > bounce message which explains the problem and has a link to a page with more > detail. They simply contact our users saying that it must be our problem.
Rejecting mail solely for SPF misconfiguration or failure is probably something you shouldn't do unless ideological purity is more important to you than the happiness of your users. Treating an invalid SPF record as no SPF record is about as strict as I'd want to get. Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
