If your mail server doesn't expect to get forwarded mail, I can see using SPF like that.
If you do expect to get forwarded mail, then it seems likely to cause more false positives than it's worth. Brandon On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Al Iverson <aiver...@spamresource.com> wrote: > It's kind of a moot point. Not many sites block mail lacking SPF > today, but the longer you send mail from a domain without an SPF > record, the more likely you are to eventually run into woe. So your > point is valid, but only in a pretty limited way. I'd say add the SPF > record. > > Gmail doesn't say that they'll block mail lacking SPF, but they do now > say that they will put a big ole question mark in the Gmail UI if the > sender lacks an SPF record or DKIM authentication. > > Cheers, > Al Iverson > > -- > Al Iverson > www.aliverson.com > (312)725-0130 > > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Renaud Allard via mailop > <mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I am following another message which suggested that btinternet.com was > > blocking emails from domains without SPF records. > > This website suggests this is "common practice" in point 4: > > https://www.iplocation.net/email-delivery-problems > > > > Do you have this kind of policy or any evidence of this behavior being > > common? I am just wondering about the percentage of mail servers with > > this kind of policy being in place. > > > > Regards > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mailop mailing list > > mailop@mailop.org > > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop > > > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop >
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
