spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: the "implicit MX" rule

2004-06-21 13:29:41
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 05:22:17PM +0200, Roger Moser wrote:
| I have tested this rule for some time, and had to remove it again because it
| filters legitimate mail.

Thanks for testing!  Nothing like a reality check.

| For example there is mail from from 209.119.0.163 (=plantain.ease.lsoft.com)
| with the envelope sender 
owner-dostravel(_at_)LISTS(_dot_)STATE(_dot_)GOV(_dot_)
| LISTS.STATE.GOV has no SPF record and no MX record but an A record
| (209.119.0.61) and you can send mail to 
owner-dostravel(_at_)LISTS(_dot_)STATE(_dot_)GOV(_dot_)
| But "v=spf1 a -all" incorrectly returns 'fail'.

Well, shucks.

If we email them, I wonder if they'll fix it.

Where I come from, doctors are required to spend a certain
number of hours per year attending classes to keep them up
to date.  If we had a dissemination channel like that, where
we could reliably reach all the postmasters of major
organizations, we would be able coordinate much better.

This is why I was mulling over the idea of putting
expiration dates in RFCs.

  
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200405/0633.html


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>