On 7/6/2011 4:15 AM, Phil Pennock wrote:
On 2011-07-01 at 19:29 -0700, Lynda wrote:
It doesn't make sense (why have an SPF entry in the DNS if you're not
going to use it), but there it is.
The SPF record type exists because some hardcore DNS folks are opposed
to storing structured data in TXT records.
Well, you would certainly have found me in the opposing and more
intelligent (in my opinion) view supporting the record, and agreeing
with the idea that TXT is meant for, well, text things. Still, I don't
care enough to reenter the stage[1], and fight for it, so I suppose I'll
just live with it. BTW, I admit to waiting to answer this until after
coffee, so as to add in the polite bits that weren't there when I first
saw the email.
Approximately nothing uses the SPF RR type.
Well, close to nothing. When I initially started with this problem, the
documentation we found said "SPF Record" and I was not the only person
led astray with this. I have found some larger sites that do have SPF
records (but 100% of those sites have an equivalent TXT record that is
identical in every way).
So, to use SPF, you:
* publish a TXT record
* optionally publish an SPF record too, for brownie points with
conformance test suites but not for deliverability
One supposes that you *did* read all the messages in this thread,
including the one where I thanked everyone, on and off line, and said
that I done this. In addition, I left the SPF record there, since it
hurts nothing, and may be helpful to have down the road (just because no
one is using it now does not mean that it won't be used in future).
And seriously, use DKIM. And if you run mailing-lists, read
draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-12.txt, available as:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-12
I flat *loathe* DKIM. It makes email messages huge, and I find that most
spam (that I see) has either SPF or DKIM records in any case. Until we
get serious about prosecuting spammers, with actual penalties (and
include the companies that they spam *for* in those penalties), it isn't
going to get better. SPF is a band aid, and I'm annoyed about having to
add it, but understand that, due to the way the mailing list I have is
set up, for *this* particular instance, it's vaguely helpful.
DKIM is like a body cast for a paper cut.
I appreciate very much your response (which spells out clearly details
which I find useful, and will refer others to, should they also have
this problem).
I admit that I might not have replied had I not seem the evil DKIM
before I'd had adequate caffeination (and retyped 90% of my response
once I'd had coffee, and before I sent, since I have a rule about email
before coffee).
[1] I'm retired. I really *like* being retired.
--
"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/
