On Thu, 2024-05-16 at 19:27 -0700, Michael Thomas wrote: > On 5/16/24 7:22 PM, Scott Q. wrote: > > Mike, you do realize Google/Gmail rejects e-mails with > > invalid/missing SPF right ? > > I was receiving the mail while NANOG had no SPF record, so no? Any > receiver would be really stupid take a single signal as > disqualifying.
For small-scale senders, it's either or both. For large-scale senders (5000+ per day) it's both. At least according to this: https://support.google.com/a/answer/81126 Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au, he/him) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
