spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] Digest 1.1306 for spf-discuss

2009-01-23 00:33:05
At 02:33 23/01/2009  Friday, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, alan wrote:

no you mis-understand i was countering my own standard sub-domain argument
with redirects as the solution the 3 redirects to 3 separate {standard or
entirly up to the user} subdomains carry less *byteweight* than an average
spf and sender-id record combined

You are correct.  I didn't notice the redirect.  Very good compatible solution.
Might be able to make a bind macro or failing that a preprocessor.

The only drawback is that it uses up one of the 10 lookups.

true but most would rather waste 1 on a careful redirect than kill future 
proofing

bonus of redirects for me is simply stick a %{o}. before the subdomain
and you have per user spf records

with either just records for exceptional users and a generic domain wide one 
under
*.sub.domain
or as i prefer
user1.sub.domain TXT "v=spf1 a:mail.domain -all"
user2
user3
*.sub.domain TXT "v=spf1 -all"    << the case i would love to add an extra 
return code to spf3
                                     for doesn't-exist {as in not fails{forged} 
                                     spf but just plain doesn't exist at 
all{invalid}}

where user1-x are all your valid users
{though if publishing sender-id on per user you must remember to also add 
postmaster@ and Mailer-Daemon(_at_)}
as these will be legit from's in any DSN's


I'm personally pro even firming things up in spf3 that say first record for a 
domain must be a redirect
{and make lookups allowed +1}
(thus current clients {at least ones already talking sfp1 and sender-id} adding 
support initially is easy{ish}, but enforcing the redirect can be added in 
later}

and still hoping for the alternative to -all {for use when only prior records 
have been redirects}
{or for clients to report a -all when all previous records have only been 
redirects} as an extra return code "invalid-address/helo"

as currently the receiver cannot tell these failures from users choosing to 
send mail from a source not listed in BIGISP-WITH-BAD-SPF's servers

I'd like to kill forgeries dead 
{and follow receiving users preference for the other {most users choose to 
recieve{tagged} SPF failing mail} as a still significant amount of good mail is 
failing spf, guessing broken/outdated spf records for many}

-- 
             Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
   Business Management Systems Inc.  Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.


-------------------------------------------
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



-------------------------------------------
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

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