Frank Ellermann wrote:
Heh, "my" policy is fine, the one redirect= is only the side-
effect of some zone-cut and wildcard confusion. You could of
course argue that a copy instead of a plain redirect is cheaper
for recipients. OTOH the redirect= indicates that it's not
really "my" sender policy, it's only a wildcard vanity host.
You're joking, right?
Let me quote the following facts, and please feel free to comment:
Received: from portent.listbox.com (portent.listbox.com [208.58.1.195])
by sun.ohmi.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2L4cOfm029821
for <radu(_dot_)spf(_at_)ohmi(_dot_)org>; Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:38:24
-0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by portent.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 900429ECE9
for <radu(_dot_)spf(_at_)ohmi(_dot_)org>; Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:38:24
-0500 (EST)
Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2])
by apex.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E672452EF1
for <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>; Sun, 20 Mar 2005
23:38:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1DDEdz-0002PZ-9Y
for spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com; Mon, 21 Mar 2005
05:35:59 +0100
Received: from 212.82.251.65 ([212.82.251.65])
by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2005
05:35:59 +0100
Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.65 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2005
05:35:59 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
From: Frank Ellermann <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>
SPF(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de: "v=spf1 redirect=claranet.de"
SPF(_at_)claranet(_dot_)de: "v=spf1 ip4:212.82.225.0/24 ip4:195.170.96.0/24
-all"
ciao.gmane.org : 80.91.229.2
So your mail only gets through because apex.listbox.com does not check
SPF. I wonder if the inventor of SPF finds the DNS load too expensive ?
Hahaha. Yes, it could also be because SPF without SRS does not work too
well. I wonder how much more DNS load SRS will add?
Also this means you are living proof that Andy Bakun was right when he said:
"Many many many people want(ed) to setup SPF and forget it.
Are those simple records accurate?"
But you're only missing "include:gmane.org", which should be 1 query in
the optimized version, or 4 queries in the current version. Even so your
total would still only be 6 even if gmane does not reduce their record.
Radu.