> On 12.06.2023 at 12:20 Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote:
>
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023, Gellner, Oliver via mailop wrote:
>
Does someone use those SPF tags or has any practical experience with
>> them and ever received some reports? Or do those tags only exist in
>> theory, like ruf in DMARC
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023, Gellner, Oliver via mailop wrote:
On 09.06.2023 at 09:36 Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
RFC 6652 provides for setting ra= and rr= tags, which are
themselves flagged as errors by most SPF checking sites...
Does someone use those SPF tags or has any practical
On Fri 09/Jun/2023 19:14:31 +0200 Slavko via mailop wrote:
Dňa 9. júna 2023 16:07:28 UTC používateľ Andrew C Aitchison via mailop
napísal:
I asked one of the checker websites about that and recieved the reply:
RFC6652 is a proposed standard from 2012, but was replaced by DMARC in 2015.
> On 09.06.2023 at 09:36 Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
>
> RFC 6652 provides for setting ra= and rr= tags, which are themselves flagged
> as errors by most SPF checking sites...
Does someone use those SPF tags or has any practical experience with them and
ever received some reports? Or
Dňa 9. júna 2023 16:07:28 UTC používateľ Andrew C Aitchison via mailop
napísal:
>I asked one of the checker websites about that and recieved the reply:
> RFC6652 is a proposed standard from 2012, but was replaced by DMARC in 2015.
> DMARC reports on both SPF and DKIM.
But that is their point
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
On Fri 09/Jun/2023 07:37:06 +0200 Benoît Panizzon via mailop wrote:
If you don't care enough to publish a valid SPF record, why should we
think you care whether we deliver your mail?
The customer in question used an ESP to send
Dnia 9.06.2023 o godz. 12:29:46 Joel M Snyder via mailop pisze:
> If you want to spend an amusing few moments, try querying large
> organization's DNS records for TXT and count the number of "we had
> to put this in to verify a cert/web site/service" records that were
> added for one-time domain
Alessandro Vesely possibly may have written:
>>> If you don't care enough to publish a valid SPF record, why should
>>> we think you care whether we deliver your mail?
>>
>> The customer in question used an ESP to send marketing emails.
>> That ESP told him what host to include in his SPF
If you don't care enough to publish a valid SPF record, why should
we think you care whether we deliver your mail?
The customer in question used an ESP to send marketing emails.
That ESP told him what host to include in his SPF record.
Probably some years later, that ESP changed domain and
On Fri 09/Jun/2023 07:37:06 +0200 Benoît Panizzon via mailop wrote:
If you don't care enough to publish a valid SPF record, why should
we think you care whether we deliver your mail?
The customer in question used an ESP to send marketing emails.
That ESP told him what host to include in his
Hi John
> If you don't care enough to publish a valid SPF record, why should
> we think you care whether we deliver your mail?
The customer in question used an ESP to send marketing emails.
That ESP told him what host to include in his SPF record.
Probably some years later, that ESP changed
> IETF specs tell you what to do to interoperate, but deliberately don't
> spend a lot of time saying what to do if other people do it wrong.
>
> If you don't care enough to publish a valid SPF record, why should
> we think you care whether we deliver your mail?
After dealing with this for many
It appears that Benoit Panizzon via mailop said:
>My customer claims an invalid include: renders the whole entry invalid
>causing some service provider to classify such emails as spam.
IETF specs tell you what to do to interoperate, but deliberately don't
spend a lot of time saying what to do if
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7208#section-5.2
See the table at the bottom of the section regarding recursive check_host()
evaluation.
In this case, the recursive check_host() function returned "none" as a
result from the include mechanism, and therefore according to the table,
the
Hi List
One more technical question after some discussion with one of our
customers.
Sender has SPF entry:
"v=spf1 ip4:10.1.2.0/25 include:_spf.example.com -all"
_spf.example.com either has no txt entry or just does not exist.
So from my point of view, the SPF entry is still valid as it has
15 matches
Mail list logo
