On 2/18/2012 12:05 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 18.02.2012 17:53, schrieb Jonathan Vomacka:
>> I am inquiring about how to setup a proper SPF record. I know there are
>> SPF wizards/generators available but each seem to have a different
>> "opinion" of what should be included and what should not be included.
>>
>> Let me give you a scenario of my setup, and hopefully someone can help
>> me out.
>>
>> My domain is: test.com
>> My mailserver hostname is: mail.host.com which also has a MATCHING PTR
>> record
>> mail.host.com (for example) resolves to 50.1.1.1 and 50.1.1.1 resolves
>> to mail.host.com
>>
>> This is a STANDALONE mail server which will receive and send email
>> without any VIP's or load balancing. There is however one additional
>> host that will send out mail from the domain but it wont be receiving
>> mail, it will only be used as an SMTP (outbound only) server attached to
>> a website automailer which is on a seperate webserver... It only
>> generates error reports and sends them out... so technically it isn't a
>> full mail server but it will be sending (outbound only) mail on behalf
>> of the domain.
>>
>> The additional host is: mail2.test.com which resolves to 50.2.2.2 and
>> there is a Matching PTR.
>>
>> These are the ONLY mail servers and IP addresses that will be sending
>> out mail from the test.com domain. Some websites say I should use -all
>> and others say -all will cause some MTA's to reject and ~all is better
>> to use even if those are the only two hosts sending out mail.
>>
>> Would you be able to assist with a solid SPF record?
>
>>> -all will cause some MTA's to reject
>
> then they are badly broken
>
>>> ~all is better to use
>
> this means SPF is in testing mode and not enforced
> some servers may use them for scoring but they will
> never be used for blocking spoofed messages from
> wrong sender-addresses
> _____________________
>
> however, below are SPF-compliant records working since
> years for some hundret domains, maybe your BIND-version
> does not support record-type "SPF" (Recent Fedora does)
>
> RFC says a SPF-compliant domain should use both
>
> and yes i prefer ip4 instead A/MX because this is enforcing
> a lower count of dns requests at all and our internal dns
> baclend is able to translate configured hostnames to IP
> while generating the zone-files from the database
> _____________________
>
> @ IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:91.118.73.15 ip4:91.118.73.20 -all"
> @ IN SPF "v=spf1 ip4:91.118.73.15 ip4:91.118.73.20 -all"
>
> subdomain1 IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:91.118.73.15 ip4:91.118.73.20 -all"
> subdomain1 IN SPF "v=spf1 ip4:91.118.73.15 ip4:91.118.73.20 -all"
>
>
>
Reindl,
What about if someone uses a mobile device to send e-mail? Would ~all be
better? I also generated the following SPF using a wizard. Let me know
if this looks correct:
teamwarfare.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 a mx a:mail.teamwarfare.com
a:mail2.teamwarfare.com ip4:66.90.73.80 ip4:216.250.250.148 ~all"
I wouldn't need an "include:" or "ptr" statement in this right? I would
told "include:" was to include OTHER domains that are allowed to send
e-mail, but then again I see some people writing the domain again as an
include. Also is PTR good to use or not?
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
