Re: [SA-dev] SPF Record for issues.apache.org

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:29:19 -0700 


Like the bounce you just got for responding to
[email protected] (much like responding to
[email protected])?  The bugzilla commenter will
not see your reply.
I actually didn't get a bounce. System likely just ate it. But you are right that I shouldn't have emailed that.  Laziness on my part in moving the discussion off of bugzilla to dev where it belonged.
% host -tmx bugzilla.spamassassin.org
bugzilla.spamassassin.org is an alias for issues.apache.org.
% host -tmx issues.apache.org.
issues.apache.org has no MX record

Oddly enough, it actually makes sense for that domain to lack an MX
record since it doesn't accept /incoming/ mail.  That said,
challenge-response and sender-verify (sender callouts, SAV) systems
(both of which are bad practices for other reasons) break when unable to
find a sender's MX.  Additionally, I believe some MTAs will block
envelope-from domains lacking MX records wholesale.
An A record in the abscence of MX records is a defacto MX and is RFC Valid. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MX_record#History_of_fallback_to_A
Given that unconventional setup, SPF seems highly appropriate.

Adding an incoming MTA is too, though that's a little bit more work (not
much, just set the MX record to an existing one, add the virtuserdomain,
/dev/null a few virtusers, forward the required postmaster@, and
error:nouser the rest ... alternatively, make it a spam trap e.g. by
talking to Marc Perkel).
I could argue they should configure DKIM and rPTRs and feeback loops with large ISPs and lots of other things but unless you are actually having delivery problems, I can't justify asking them to do it, sorry.


--
Kevin A. McGrail
President

Peregrine Computer Consulting Corporation
3927 Old Lee Highway, Suite 102-C
Fairfax, VA 22030-2422

http://www.pccc.com/

703-359-9700 x50 / 800-823-8402 (Toll-Free)
703-359-8451 (fax)
[email protected]

Reply via email to