though the mx is defined mx1 and mx2 to the mailhost, the spf just has the mailhost domain, which has alot of mx records since its a hosting platform
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:21 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm < [email protected]> wrote: > so having the servername of the mailhost is redundant as an additional > allowed mx, since its already the mx for the domain? > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Josh Baird <[email protected]> wrote: > >> No - it's "allowing" the MX of the current domain to send mail. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:13 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> v=spf1 a mx mx:server name.com ip4:x.x.x.x ip4:y.y.y.y all >>> >>> This is the record, Its autogenerated in bind9 as an spf type, >>> previously we used txt type with the spf flag. when i run it through >>> mxtoolbox it shows a blank mx and the mail host >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:08 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> we have an issue with a closed account still spamming, its not a local >>>> deal or using our email servers, just altered from >>>> >>>> Looking at my spf, there is a blank mx in it, is this effectively >>>> allowing all mail servers? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>> >> >> > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
