On 24 Jan 2020, at 4:47, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote:
For example, I see that your email address is @jfoo.org, and that you
have:
jfoo.org. 6 IN MX 0 mx.oustrencats.com.
jfoo.org. 6 IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:50.116.29.164
ip6:2600:3c00::f03c:91ff:fe6e:7287 -all"
This is not optimal, your SPF record should be "v=spf1 mx ?all".
Hogwash.
There is no advantage in using 'mx' in place of explicit IP addresses
and while "-all" as the default might be an issue for larger domains
with diverse senders, it isn't a problem today if you actually send all
your mail though the MTAs in the record. The trauma of p=reject DKIM and
many years of outright SPF errors have softened the effective semantics
of "-all" to what "~all" should have been. And of course, if one is
concerned about "-all" being too absolute or being overinterpreted as "I
send no mail," "~all" is more expressive than "?all" can be. In any
case, if mail is affirmed by a SPF record, the only case where the
default should be considered as spamsign is if it is "+all"
Your server is apparently part of the Linode network, so there is no
reason it should have a bad reputation.
Is that intended as sarcasm?
Across the systems I work with, Linode's IP ranges are marginally
spammier as SMTP senders than the Internet as a whole. However, on my
personal system Linode looks like a pure spam source, which is a volume
effect. They are certainly not notably less spammy than other large
hosting providers.
--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Not For Hire (currently)
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
