SPF on 9.4.1 now?

Barry Margolin barmar at alum.mit.edu
Wed May 23 04:29:43 UTC 2007

In article <f2ubk5$kuj$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
 Sten Carlsen <ccc2716 at vip.cybercity.dk> wrote:

> The answer that you "just" upgrade your client-SW is probably not going
> to make much difference. Most people will not be like those on this
> list, they will be more ordinaire guys.
> I wonder how many will be able to upgrade an off the shelf windows
> program? At least as I use spf, I use Thunderbird with the
> spf-extension. While I have access to the source, I will not use that
> effort, spf is not THE spam tool as pointed out, but in my experience it
> does help in sorting things out. If only spf-RRs are published, I will
> publish my own in due time when my DNS-provider has upgraded enough to
> support them(I will also continue publishing txt-RRs until no longer
> useful) and I will use them when "somebody else" has upgraded my
> applications. This will mean a break in the usefulness of spf.

I think the expectation is that SPF is mostly checked by servers, not 
individual end users.  So ordinaire [sic] guys don't need to worry about 
it, they just need their ISPs to update their SMTP servers.

And are there any sites that reject mail when there's no SPF record?  I 
sure hope not, since some major companies and ISPs don't publish them.  
So if a site only publishes the new-style SPF RR and not the old TXT RR, 
receivers that only look for TXT records will simply treat it as if 
there's no SPF.

Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

More information about the bind-users mailing list