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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
