spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers

2004-07-16 14:55:59
At 02:42 PM 7/16/2004 -0400, Graham Murray 
<graham(_at_)webwayone(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
administrator(_at_)yellowhead(_dot_)com writes:

That's interesting, because it is a very common practice these days to
service many domains from one IP address (we currently service 10 virtual
email domains from one server). You can publish multiple PTR records, but
unfortunately there are many programs out there that only look at the first
one. Reliably matching up the PTR to the "A" record is virtually
impossible.

That is why SPF requires the PTR record to match *one* (any) of the A
records. So there must be an A record for the name returned by the
PTR record and that A record must resolve to the IP address being
looked up.
******************* REPLY SEPARATER *******************
That also is a problem. For many months now, and after repeated requests,
our upstream provider has still not delegated authority to us for our "C"
class domain. They act as secondary for our forward lookup, but we can't
seem to get through the beurocrats to the right person to create the
reverse zone. So for us, you will always get a reverse lookup that does not
correspond to the forward lookup.

This has been a problem every time we have changed suppliers, and we have a
"C" class network which is relatively easy to delegate. Anyone with less
than a "C" class network is sh_it out of luck.

J.A. Coutts