Re: spf records and cnames

2015-10-27 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 27.10.2015 um 20:15 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas: it does not explain why should it cause problems for HELO SPF. as I have already noted, using CNAME for HELO violates SMTP RFC, so there's technically no reason to follow CNAME expecially in these cases that is nonsense the goal of HELO

Re: spf records and cnames

2015-10-27 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 22.10.15 00:19, Reindl Harald wrote: otherwise you would not be able to set a SPF-record for your CNAMES and "reject_unknown_sender_domain" won't hit for a forged subdomain because it exists - so SPF *must* work for CNAMES or the whole intention for HELO SPF would not work Am 22.10.2015 um

Re: spf records and cnames

2015-10-22 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 22.10.2015 um 13:55 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas: Am 22.10.2015 um 00:08 schrieb Bill Cole: I don't believe so and there's no reason to. CNAME records trump all DNS record types for a name so it may be usually unwise to have a CNAME record for a name that is used in email address domain p

Re: spf records and cnames

2015-10-22 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
Am 22.10.2015 um 00:08 schrieb Bill Cole: I don't believe so and there's no reason to. CNAME records trump all DNS record types for a name so it may be usually unwise to have a CNAME record for a name that is used in email address domain parts, but it isn't inherently wrong. A name which is reso

Re: spf records and cnames

2015-10-21 Thread Dianne Skoll
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 00:59:04 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: > so *read* what i refer to and read it really > YOU SET THE SPF AS ANY OTHER RECORD TYPE FOR A CNAME IMPLICITLY BY DO > THAT FOR THE A-RECORD THE CNAME IS POINTING TO You don't need to yell. A CNAME does not point to an A record. Regard

Re: spf records and cnames

2015-10-21 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 22.10.2015 um 00:19 schrieb Reindl Harald: Am 22.10.2015 um 00:08 schrieb Bill Cole: On 21 Oct 2015, at 13:48, btb wrote: are spf records allowed to be a cname? I can't see any reason why they shouldn't be... e.g.: http://dpaste.com/0MR0R3C.txt is this explicitly addressed in an rf

Re: spf records and cnames

2015-10-21 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 22.10.2015 um 00:26 schrieb Dianne Skoll: On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 00:19:05 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: no it should NOT otherwise you would not be able to set a SPF-record for your CNAMES You can't do that anyway. If a domain has a CNAME record, it MUST NOT have any other records of any

Re: spf records and cnames

2015-10-21 Thread Dianne Skoll
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 00:19:05 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: > no it should NOT > otherwise you would not be able to set a SPF-record for your CNAMES You can't do that anyway. If a domain has a CNAME record, it MUST NOT have any other records of any other type whatsoever. So there's no way to set

Re: spf records and cnames

2015-10-21 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 22.10.2015 um 00:08 schrieb Bill Cole: On 21 Oct 2015, at 13:48, btb wrote: are spf records allowed to be a cname? I can't see any reason why they shouldn't be... e.g.: http://dpaste.com/0MR0R3C.txt is this explicitly addressed in an rfc? I don't believe so and there's no reason to.

Re: spf records and cnames

2015-10-21 Thread Bill Cole
On 21 Oct 2015, at 13:48, btb wrote: are spf records allowed to be a cname? I can't see any reason why they shouldn't be... e.g.: http://dpaste.com/0MR0R3C.txt is this explicitly addressed in an rfc? I don't believe so and there's no reason to. CNAME records trump all DNS record types f

Re: spf records and cnames

2015-10-21 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 21.10.2015 um 19:48 schrieb btb: are spf records allowed to be a cname? e.g.: http://dpaste.com/0MR0R3C.txt is this explicitly addressed in an rfc? a CNAME is always followed, hence you can't mix CNAME and other ressource types, in other words: yes otherwise you would need a SPF recor

Re: spf records and cnames

2015-10-21 Thread Benny Pedersen
On October 21, 2015 7:49:06 PM btb wrote: http://dpaste.com/0MR0R3C.txt https://dmarcian.com/spf-survey/email.instantbusinessresources.com is this explicitly addressed in an rfc? dont know, aslong spf is valid, then its ok

RE: SPF Records

2004-10-06 Thread David Brodbeck
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 14:00:19 -0400, Dave Duffner - NWCWEB.com wrote > Last we heard from this (or another, poss. MailScanner) List > was that SPF's are now a dead issue. Some locations are using it > and trying to keep it alive, but even MicroWreck backed off their > stance in supporting it.

Re: SPF Records

2004-10-06 Thread Vivek Khera
On Oct 6, 2004, at 4:03 PM, Wess Bechard wrote: Is there an SA rule to decrease valid SPF mail server's scores yet? I think it does something like -0.001 points. and that's about all it should ever do. check the archives for massive discussion both here and in the SPF lists, I'm sure. SPF is n

Re: SPF Records

2004-10-06 Thread Wess Bechard
Is there an SA rule to decrease valid SPF mail server's scores yet? On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 15:59, Oscar Retana wrote: The actual number is about: 140.000 domains This only includes those manually registered at: http://spftools.infinitepenguins.net/register.php Check also: http://spf.pobox.co

Re: SPF Records

2004-10-06 Thread Oscar Retana
The actual number is about: 140.000 domains This only includes those manually registered at: http://spftools.infinitepenguins.net/register.php Check also: http://spf.pobox.com/ More important than the current percentaje of domains publishing SPF records is the fact that most important domains arou

Re: SPF Records

2004-10-06 Thread j o a r
On 2004-10-06, at 19.48, Stuart Gall wrote: I read that 21,000 domains now use an SPF record, so we should be checking for it right? The numbers are far greater than that. You can check the statistics of domains that use SPF and that have manually registered that they do here:

RE: SPF Records

2004-10-06 Thread kaiser suse
Dave Duffner - NWCWEB.com said: > > Last we heard from this (or another, poss. MailScanner) List > was that SPF's are now a dead issue. Some locations are using it > and trying to keep it alive, but even MicroWreck backed off their > stance in supporting it. Quite mistaken, the attempt by

Re: SPF Records

2004-10-06 Thread Theo Van Dinter
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:00:19PM -0400, Dave Duffner - NWCWEB.com wrote: > Last we heard from this (or another, poss. MailScanner) List > was that SPF's are now a dead issue. Some locations are using it > and trying to keep it alive, but even MicroWreck backed off their > stance in suppor

RE: SPF Records

2004-10-06 Thread Dave Duffner - NWCWEB.com
> -Original Message- > From: Stuart Gall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 1:49 PM > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: SPF Records > > Hello, > Does SA 3.0.0 check for the presence of the SPF record in the DNS of > the originating domain ? > > I re

Re: SPF Records

2004-10-06 Thread Theo Van Dinter
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 08:48:48PM +0300, Stuart Gall wrote: > Does SA 3.0.0 check for the presence of the SPF record in the DNS of > the originating domain ? If you have Net::DNS installed and the plugin loaded (it is by default). -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "A: You mean it's not due on Fri

Re: SPF Records

2004-10-06 Thread Dan Mahoney, System Admin
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, Stuart Gall wrote: Hello, Does SA 3.0.0 check for the presence of the SPF record in the DNS of the originating domain ? I read that 21,000 domains now use an SPF record, so we should be checking for it right? Out of how many domains total? The numbers impressive. The percen