Hi Lynda, I see your record is published as the "SPF" DNS type, but not as "TXT"
$ dig 3clug.org SPF +short "v=spf1 a mx a:vuae.pair.com a:eight.pairlist.net include:relay.pair.com -all" $ dig 3clug.org TXT +short $ I think this is uncommonly used, I'd try duplicating the record as the TXT type and see if Google accepts it. HTH, Jonathan On Jul 1, 2011, at 7:05 PM, Lynda wrote: > Yeah, I still hate google. I say this event though I'm about to get an > android phone, and am finally moving away from the blackberry. > > I manage a mailing list that's actually provided by the hosting people I use, > and it's been almost effortless, no heavy lifting for me at all. Oh, that all > ended a couple of days ago. Google/Gmail is now reporting warnings, for every > single post, every single time, because there's no SPF record, *and* because > the email is not coming from who appears to be the sender. > > Normally, on any other list, I'd just tell the people using gmail to use > something else, or get used to the error message. Unfortunately, even though > it's a Linux user group mailing list, many of the people are not all that > technical, and what's worse, 47 of the 100 users have gmail accounts, and > many of them are the most active members. > > The warning reads: > > "This message may not have been sent by: [email protected] > Learn more Report phishing" > > I've been trying to work through this with the provider (and really surprised > that I seem to be the only one with this problem, since I know they manage > multiple lists), and I think that although we've created an spf record, that > it's wrong. It certainly isn't making gmail happy, and I'd really like to do > that. > > Here's Gmail complaining: > > 1 Received: from eight.pairlist.net (eight.pairlist.net [209.68.2.227]) > by mx.google.com with ESMTP id > dm1si1817465qab.15.2011.06.30.10.27.57; > Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:27:57 -0700 (PDT) > 2 Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 209.68.2.227 is neither permitted > nor denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected]) > client-ip=209.68.2.227; > 3 Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral > (google.com: 209.68.2.227 is neither permitted nor denied by > best guess record for domain of [email protected]) > [email protected] > > Line 1 shows the actual host that has the mailman software, and is sending > out the mail. Line 2 is Google tsk, tsking at me, and line 3 basically says > I'm screwed. > > The current SPF record for 3clug.org is wrong (which you can see from dig), > in ways that are too subtle for someone who hasn't done anything new in DNS > for more years than I like to think of. Even worse, the only example of an > SPF record that I could find, that worked, bears not the slightest > resemblance to the one that the folks at Pair have suggested. > > I could stumble around, or spend some time reading, but really, I'm hoping to > just get it fixed so that the message goes away. I might add that, although > I've said sincerely that I hate google, in this case, I don't really disagree > with them. Just because I have an edge case where I know that the mail is all > legitimate, for this particular instance, I'd be just as happy to put in the > right SPF, and be done with it. > > Thanks in advance, as usual. > > -- > "The time will come when winter will ask you what you were doing all summer." > > Henry Clay > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators > http://lopsa.org/ _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
