On 10/19/2013 01:45, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
On Oct 19, 2013, at 00:13, Dominik George <n...@naturalnet.de> wrote:
if i would be you i would *not* use "v=spf1 mx ~all"
If I were [...] ...
here you go for ipv6
http://www.openspf.org/SPF_Record_Syntax#ip6
Jeez, I don't believe it. The problem is that the mx mechanism simply
only enumerates A records of MXs. That's broken ...
The only place I've seen this problem with the lookup of IPv6 addresses via the
'mx' construct in SPF records was Gmail, which was resolved, and recently some
small local operator who kept insisting that the problem was on our side until
the evidence was so overwhelmingly pointing to his own setup that he could no
longer ignore it.
He made the same claim, however, but never backed it up. How are you reaching
your conclusion?
Because this only mentions A records and IPv4 prefixes?
http://www.openspf.org/SPF_Record_Syntax#mx
Mvg,
Joni
Quick testing:
m...@staticsafe.ca -> @gmail.com account
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of m...@staticsafe.ca designates
2607:5300:60:e3a::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:5300:60:e3a::1;
staticsafe.ca. 1792 IN SPF "v=spf1 mx -all"
To check-a...@verifier.port25.com:
----------------------------------------------------------
SPF check details:
----------------------------------------------------------
Result: pass
ID(s) verified: smtp.mailfrom=m...@staticsafe.ca
DNS record(s):
staticsafe.ca. 1800 IN SPF "v=spf1 mx -all"
staticsafe.ca. 1800 IN MX 10 mx1.staticsafe.ca.
mx1.staticsafe.ca. 1800 IN AAAA 2607:5300:60:e3a::1
--
staticsafe
O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
Please don't top post. It is not logical.
Please don't CC me! I'm subscribed to whatever list I just posted on.
