headers
SmallFries | 14 Apr 2010 11:52
Picon

(unknown)

http://EvangelinaFugatt1391.co.cc
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bob Tinkelman | 28 Apr 2010 18:38

spf exp= facility

I configured a number of spf records using the exp= facility
to provide more details in rejection messages.

I then discovered that the software I'm using to receive
mail (PMDF) doesn't support these.  

That means that the exp= facility doesn't help me on mail
I'm receiving.  But I figured the expanded text could still
be of use to other systems.

The problem is, I don't know how to test to make sure I
haven't make mistakes in creating the referenced TXT RRs.

http://www.openspf.org/Tools suggested mailing to
spf-test <at> openspf.org.  That gets a useful response, but
not one that expands the exp= TXT record.

Is there a suggested system that implements SPF exp=, and to
which I could make a few test connections (manually telnet-
ing to port 25, say) without being impolite?

Thanks
--
Bob Tinkelman <bob <at> tink.com>
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
alan | 28 Apr 2010 19:05
Favicon

Re: spf exp= facility

send me the domain(s) and the email(s) [one that exists one that dosn't] + examples of passing ip's and some
known-to-fail ip's
and i can just simply parse them by hand or feed to a spf command-line checker and tell you if it works

At 17:38 28/04/2010  Wednesday, Bob Tinkelman wrote:
>I configured a number of spf records using the exp= facility
>to provide more details in rejection messages.
>
>I then discovered that the software I'm using to receive
>mail (PMDF) doesn't support these.  
>
>That means that the exp= facility doesn't help me on mail
>I'm receiving.  But I figured the expanded text could still
>be of use to other systems.
>
>The problem is, I don't know how to test to make sure I
>haven't make mistakes in creating the referenced TXT RRs.
>
>http://www.openspf.org/Tools suggested mailing to
>spf-test <at> openspf.org.  That gets a useful response, but
>not one that expands the exp= TXT record.
>
>Is there a suggested system that implements SPF exp=, and to
>which I could make a few test connections (manually telnet-
>ing to port 25, say) without being impolite?
>
>Thanks
>--
>Bob Tinkelman <bob <at> tink.com>
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bob Tinkelman | 28 Apr 2010 20:32

Re: spf exp= facility

> send me the domain(s) and the email(s) [one that exists one
> that dosn't] + examples of passing ip's and some
> known-to-fail ip's and i can just simply parse them by hand
> or feed to a spf command-line checker and tell you if it
> works

Thanks.  That's very generous of you.  I'll send you a
reply off-list.

However, does this mean that there are no well-known
sites using SPF?  That's discouraging :-(

- Bob

> At 17:38 28/04/2010  Wednesday, Bob Tinkelman wrote:
> >I configured a number of spf records using the exp= facility
> >to provide more details in rejection messages.
> >
> >I then discovered that the software I'm using to receive
> >mail (PMDF) doesn't support these.
> >
> >That means that the exp= facility doesn't help me on mail
> >I'm receiving.  But I figured the expanded text could still
> >be of use to other systems.
> >
> >The problem is, I don't know how to test to make sure I
> >haven't make mistakes in creating the referenced TXT RRs.
> >
> >http://www.openspf.org/Tools suggested mailing to
> >spf-test <at> openspf.org.  That gets a useful response, but
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
alan | 28 Apr 2010 20:42
Favicon

Re: spf exp= facility

At 19:32 28/04/2010  Wednesday, Bob Tinkelman wrote:
>> send me the domain(s) and the email(s) [one that exists one
>> that dosn't] + examples of passing ip's and some
>> known-to-fail ip's and i can just simply parse them by hand
>> or feed to a spf command-line checker and tell you if it
>> works
>
>Thanks.  That's very generous of you.  I'll send you a
>reply off-list.
>
>However, does this mean that there are no well-known
>sites using SPF?  That's discouraging :-(

no just means i don't know who is/isn't and most sites will also feed failures to other reputation filters so
you don't want to intentionaly send them stuff that will fail ruining the rep of the testing ip

why bother when you can just run a commandline tester

>- Bob
>
>
>
>
>> At 17:38 28/04/2010  Wednesday, Bob Tinkelman wrote:
>> >I configured a number of spf records using the exp= facility
>> >to provide more details in rejection messages.
>> >
>> >I then discovered that the software I'm using to receive
>> >mail (PMDF) doesn't support these.
>> >
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Scott Kitterman | 28 Apr 2010 21:39

Re: spf exp= facility


"Bob Tinkelman" <bob <at> tink.com> wrote:

>I configured a number of spf records using the exp= facility
>to provide more details in rejection messages.
>
>I then discovered that the software I'm using to receive
>mail (PMDF) doesn't support these.  
>
>That means that the exp= facility doesn't help me on mail
>I'm receiving.  But I figured the expanded text could still
>be of use to other systems.
>
>The problem is, I don't know how to test to make sure I
>haven't make mistakes in creating the referenced TXT RRs.
>
>http://www.openspf.org/Tools suggested mailing to
>spf-test <at> openspf.org.  That gets a useful response, but
>not one that expands the exp= TXT record.
>
>Is there a suggested system that implements SPF exp=, and to
>which I could make a few test connections (manually telnet-
>ing to port 25, say) without being impolite?
>
The spf test address should deal with exp correctly.  If you will email times, domains, and what spf record
you had published at the time, I will investigate. 

Scott K

-------------------------------------------
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bob Tinkelman | 29 Apr 2010 00:29

Re: spf exp= facility

Thanks to everyone who responded to my question, both
on-list and off-list.

For posterity, here were my two mistakes:

(1) Assuming that systems like gmail were not using SPF
    when they didn't reject "spf fail" cases during the
    smtp protocol.

(2) Reversing the last two entries in an SPF record:
       -all exp=spf-exp.%{d}"
    instead of:
       exp=spf-exp.%{d} -all"

Again, thanks for all the help.
- Bob
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane