In message <20130724094623.gb12...@nic.fr>, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:39:53PM +0200,
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas 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 forwa
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 Tra
In message <20130724093737.ga12...@nic.fr>, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 03:01:47PM +1000,
> Mark Andrews 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.
>
> Th
On Jul 24, 2013, at 4:48 AM, "Stephane Bortzmeyer" wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:39:53PM +0200,
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote
> a message of 28 lines which said:
>
>> This was discussed here already,
[...]
>> The SPF RR is already
>> here and is preferred over TXT that is generik RR t
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:39:53PM +0200,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas 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 is generik RR
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 03:01:47PM +1000,
Mark Andrews 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 7/23/13 7:36 AM, "Matus UHLAR - fantomas" wrote:
>> In article ,
>> 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, because
>>> it's not the original sender who s
In article ,
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, because
it's not the original sender who sends the another mail. Forwarding without
changing envelope address is
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, Un
On Jul 22, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Barry S. Finkel 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 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.
In article ,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas 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. Finkel
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. Finkel wrote:
It is not Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt that "SPF br
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 forwa
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
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.
__
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 wrote:
> I just started noticing these in my log:
>
> 7/21/
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 w
It's exactly as it says...
Instead of
... TXT "SPF ..."
You now do
... SPF "SPF ..."
--
Jason Hellenthal
Inbox: jhellent...@dataix.net
Voice: +1 (616) 953-0176
JJH48-ARIN
On Jul 22, 2013, at 0:48, SH Development wrote:
> I just started noticing these in my log:
>
> 7/21/13 11:33:13
In message , SH
Development writes:
> 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 S
> PF/TXT record but no SPF/SPF record found, add matching type SPF record
>
> The zone
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 understan
21 matches
Mail list logo
