do you use SPF TXT RRs? (RFC4408)

Mon Oct 4 17:16:48 UTC 2010

On 10/04/2010 10:05 AM, John Adams wrote:
> We've seen percentage gains when signing with DK, and we carefully
> monitor our mail acceptance percentages with ReturnPath. It's around
> 4-6%. I'd like to stop using it, but some people still check DK.

Sigh. I was hoping not to hear that. It's been about 5 years since
the issue of rfc4871. It might be helpful to name and shame.

Mike

>
> -j
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Michael Thomas<mike at mtcc.com>  wrote:
>> On 10/04/2010 09:54 AM, John Adams wrote:
>>>
>>> Without proper SPF records your mail stands little chance of making it
>>> through some of the larger providers, like gmail, if you are sending
>>> in any high volume. You should be using SPF, DK, and DKIM signing.
>>
>> There should really be no reason to sign with DK too. It's historic.
>>
>>> I don't really understand how your security company related SPF to DoS
>>> though. They're unrelated, with the exception of backscatter.
>>
>> Me either.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>>
>>> -j
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Greg Whynott<Greg.Whynott at oicr.on.ca>
>>>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A partner had a security audit done on their site.  The report said they
>>>> were at risk of a DoS due to the fact they didn't have a SPF record.
>>>>
>>>> I commented to his team that the SPF idea has yet to see anything near
>>>> mass deployment and of the millions of emails leaving our environment
>>>> yearly,  I doubt any of them have ever been dropped due to us not having an
>>>> SPF record in our DNS.  When a client's email doesn't arrive somewhere,  we
>>>> will hear about it quickly,  and its investigated/reported upon.      I'm
>>>> not opposed to putting one in our DNS,  and probably will now - for
>>>> completeness/best practice sake..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> how many of you are using SPF records?  Do you have an opinion on their
>>>> use/non use of?
>>>>
>>>> take care,
>>>> greg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>