On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
One area, that I think SPF missed was CNAME.
Why do you think that ? AFAIK SPF doesn't say
"don't follow CNAME", that is a rule in 2821bis
about MX.
Well, since I changed the 200 CNAMES and put an SPF record for each one of
them, I have not received very many Mail-Daemon responses. It could be
that the just finished a spam run or what ever email, they claimed I sent.
Yesterday, I received 10,000 Mail-Daemon responses for email, I did not
send. today I have only had about 10. The only change I made was the
CNAME's. In a few of the Mail-Daemon response they claim I could no use a
? in front of my mechanism's before my -all. All the ones I looked at had
ignored or not used the CNAME TXT record. They claimed for example that
?ip:67.91.130.5 and ?a:etrn.xmission.com were invalid. Also that
zenez.com did not have and SPF record. I admit it is a bit of a different
DNS record, but I have used zenez.com this way since 1990. So I really
doubt that is the problem.
| Until your SPF record are updated, you will
| be receiving this message each day, until
| the 1st of January 2009, for each daily
| message you send to our clients.
Sigh, the one thing that is always worse than
spam are wannabe-anti-spammers. You say you
have a policy, so is that s/wannabe/clueless/ ?
I think they are a clueless wannable.
--
Boyd Gerber <gerberb(_at_)zenez(_dot_)com>
ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com