We've seen percentage gains when signing with DK, and we carefully monitor our mail acceptance percentages with ReturnPath. It's around 4-6%. I'd like to stop using it, but some people still check DK.
-j On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > On 10/04/2010 09:54 AM, John Adams wrote: >> >> Without proper SPF records your mail stands little chance of making it >> through some of the larger providers, like gmail, if you are sending >> in any high volume. You should be using SPF, DK, and DKIM signing. > > There should really be no reason to sign with DK too. It's historic. > >> I don't really understand how your security company related SPF to DoS >> though. They're unrelated, with the exception of backscatter. > > Me either. > > Mike > >> >> -j >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Greg Whynott<greg.whyn...@oicr.on.ca> >> wrote: >>> >>> A partner had a security audit done on their site. The report said they >>> were at risk of a DoS due to the fact they didn't have a SPF record. >>> >>> I commented to his team that the SPF idea has yet to see anything near >>> mass deployment and of the millions of emails leaving our environment >>> yearly, I doubt any of them have ever been dropped due to us not having an >>> SPF record in our DNS. When a client's email doesn't arrive somewhere, we >>> will hear about it quickly, and its investigated/reported upon. I'm >>> not opposed to putting one in our DNS, and probably will now - for >>> completeness/best practice sake.. >>> >>> >>> how many of you are using SPF records? Do you have an opinion on their >>> use/non use of? >>> >>> take care, >>> greg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > >
