On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 03:01:47PM +1000,
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote
a message of 56 lines which said:
It SHOULD have record of type SPF as per RFC 4408. Named will
complain if both types are not present.
Then, named is now wrong, since RFC 6686.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:39:53PM +0200,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote
a message of 28 lines which said:
This was discussed here already, and imho this is anti-spf bullshit
like all those spf breaks forwarding FUD. The SPF RR is already
here and is preferred over TXT that
On Jul 24, 2013, at 4:48 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzme...@nic.fr wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:39:53PM +0200,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote
a message of 28 lines which said:
This was discussed here already,
[...]
The SPF RR is already
here and is preferred over
In message 20130724093737.ga12...@nic.fr, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 03:01:47PM +1000,
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote
a message of 56 lines which said:
It SHOULD have record of type SPF as per RFC 4408. Named will
complain if both types are not present.
Hi Dan,
At 03:07 24-07-2013, McDonald, Dan wrote:
SPF RR types are already standards track - see RFC 6652. An
informational rfc warning that the standard is not being adopted
should be seen as a call to fix the admins, not discard the standard.
The SPF specification is not on the Standards
In message 20130724094623.gb12...@nic.fr, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:39:53PM +0200,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote
a message of 28 lines which said:
This was discussed here already, and imho this is anti-spf bullshit
like all those spf
In article mailman.881.1374508134.20661.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
No, it does not. If a mail gets delivered to address, which is sending it
further (forwarding it), the envelope sender has to be changed, because
it's not the original sender who
On 7/23/13 7:36 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
In article mailman.881.1374508134.20661.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
No, it does not. If a mail gets delivered to address, which is sending it
further (forwarding it), the envelope sender has to be changed,
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 02:51 -0400, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
It's exactly as it says...
Instead of
... TXT SPF ...
You now do
... SPF SPF ...
Mark Andrews wrote:
No. It has a legacy SPF TXT record. It SHOULD have record of
type SPF as per RFC 4408.
Named will complain if
Basically a SPF record type in place that's new but you could carry both for
new and older clients.
--
Jason Hellenthal
Inbox: jhellent...@dataix.net
Voice: +1 (616) 953-0176
JJH48-ARIN
On Jul 22, 2013, at 0:48, SH Development listacco...@starionline.com wrote:
I just started noticing
Hi there,
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
It's exactly as it says...
Instead of
... TXT SPF ...
You now do
... SPF SPF ...
Caution! The SPF record type is near enough dead. See in particular
RFC6686 paragraph 5.6; paragraph 6.2; and Appendix A point 4.
--
73,
Ged.
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
It's exactly as it says...
Instead of ... TXT SPF ...
You now do
... SPF SPF ...
On 22.07.13 11:26, G.W. Haywood wrote:
Caution! The SPF record type is near enough dead. See in particular
RFC6686 paragraph 5.6; paragraph 6.2; and Appendix A
This was discussed here already, and imho this is anti-spf bullshit like
all those spf breaks forwarding FUD. The SPF RR is already here and is
preferred over TXT that is generik RR type, unlike SPF.
It is not Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt that SPF breaks forwarding.
SPF *DOES* break
In article mailman.881.1374508134.20661.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
This was discussed here already, and imho this is anti-spf bullshit like
all those spf breaks forwarding FUD. The SPF RR is already here and is
preferred over TXT that is generik
On 7/22/2013 11:17 AM, bind-users-requ...@lists.isc.org wrote:
This was discussed here already, and imho this is anti-spf bullshit like
all those spf breaks forwarding FUD. The SPF RR is already here and is
preferred over TXT that is generik RR type, unlike SPF.
On 22.07.13 08:50, Barry S.
On Jul 22, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Barry S. Finkel bsfin...@att.net wrote:
On 7/22/2013 11:17 AM, bind-users-requ...@lists.isc.org wrote:
This was discussed here already, and imho this is anti-spf bullshit like
all those spf breaks forwarding FUD. The SPF RR is already here and is
preferred over
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 08:50 -0500, Barry S. Finkel wrote:
This was discussed here already, and imho this is anti-spf bullshit like
all those spf breaks forwarding FUD. The SPF RR is already here and is
preferred over TXT that is generik RR type, unlike SPF.
It is not Fear, Uncertainty,
I just started noticing these in my log:
7/21/13 11:33:13 PM named[355] 21-Jul-2013 23:33:13.646 general:
warning: zone domain.com/IN: 'domain.com' found SPF/TXT record but no SPF/SPF
record found, add matching type SPF record
The zone does have an SPF record. I'm not sure I
18 matches
Mail list logo
