On Sun, 2012-03-11 at 11:01 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> hm, since it contains the same data as spf1 and even hotmail itself
> has only spf1 i tend to ignore it also in the future
>
Just had a look and you're right, but as it improved our deliverable
success rates to hotmail many fold a f
Am 11.03.2012 09:44, schrieb Noel Butler:
> On Sat, 2012-03-10 at 22:33 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> >have you some good documentation/examples
>> >since i am the developer of our admin-backends
>> >it should be easy to integrate any record-types
>> >
>> I wouldn't worry too much about it. Yo
On Sat, 2012-03-10 at 22:33 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >no because i did not notice about spf2.0 until now
> >and do not find anything about it on openspf.org
> >http://www.openspf.org/SPF_Record_Syntax
> >
> >have you some good documentation/examples
> >since i am the developer of our admin
Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
>Am 10.03.2012 02:08, schrieb Nick Edwards:
>>> thelounge.net. 86400 IN SPF "v=spf1
>ip4:91.118.73.15
>>> ip4:91.118.73.20 ip4:91.118.73.17
>>> ip4:91.118.73.6 ip4:91.118.73.32 ip4:91.118.73.38 ip4:91.118.73.30
>>> ip4:91.118.73.1 ip4:89.207.144.27 -
Am 10.03.2012 02:08, schrieb Nick Edwards:
>> thelounge.net. 86400 IN SPF "v=spf1 ip4:91.118.73.15
>> ip4:91.118.73.20 ip4:91.118.73.17
>> ip4:91.118.73.6 ip4:91.118.73.32 ip4:91.118.73.38 ip4:91.118.73.30
>> ip4:91.118.73.1 ip4:89.207.144.27 -all"
>>
>> thelounge.net.
