[Techtalk] spf records stuff

Ben Knowles adric at adric.net
Fri Sep 21 23:40:45 UTC 2007


When I dig your mail domain for txt records, I get this:

shadlen.org.            86400   IN      TXT     "'v=spf1
ip4: ip4: ip4:
ip4: ip4: ip4: ip4:1"
" a ~all'"

Is your record broken into multiple strings? It looks like it breaks at
the 140.142 addy, and maybe that's the trouble? Other than that the SPF
syntax looks okay to me..

Perhaps you could post a snippet of your Bind (et alia) zone? If it is
bind then you might try named-checkzone, as it can catch syntax errors.


Maria McKinley wrote:
> Hey there,
> On this page there are several spf tests:
> http://www.kitterman.com/spf/validate.html?
> If I do the first test, I get an SPF record:
> Input accepted, querying now...
> SPF records are primarily published in DNS as TXT records. The TXT 
> records found for your domain are:
> 'v=spf1 ip4: ip4: ip4: 
> ip4: ip4: ip4: ip4:1
> SPF records should also be published in DNS as type SPF records. This is 
> new and most implementations do not support it yet.
> No type SPF records found.
> Checking to see if there is a valid SPF record.
> No valid SPF record found of either type TXT or type SPF.
> I know I don't have type SPF record, but I think that shouldn't matter. 
> But if I do the Test an SPF record on the bottom of the page, using my 
> mail server ip, I get:
> Results - none
> And it appears the I don't have an SPF record is the norm:
> ella] rejected a message that claimed an envelope sender address of 
> peterm at shadlen.org.
> ella] received a message from m0d0e36d0.tmodns.net ( that 
> claimed an envelope sender address of peterm at shadlen.org.
> The domain shadlen.org has not published an SPF policy. It is possible 
> that the receiving mail server refuses all mail from domains that do not 
> have an SPF policy.
> My question is, why aren't many servers (including apparently my own - 
> ella!) not seeing my SPF policy. I have two domain servers, and they 
> both have SPF records. I can't imagine all of these servers are looking 
> for type SPF records, or are most places now using them? I have tested 
> my SPF records, and they are valid. I don't mind setting up type SPF as 
> well as type TXT, and will, but I don't believe this will solve my 
> problem, and it is not clear to me how the syntax for the type SPF is 
> different (is it?) from the type TXT. Can I just re-write the same line, 
> except with SPF where TXT was?
> any insight?
> thanks,
> maria
> _______________________________________________
> Techtalk mailing list
> Techtalk at linuxchix.org
> http://mailman.linuxchix.org/mailman/listinfo/techtalk

More information about the Techtalk mailing list