IETF Logo Mail Archive

[spfbis] Clarity on location of SPF records

Danie de Jager <danie.dejager@za.striata.com> Tue, 16 September 2014 11:28 UTC

Return-Path: <danie.dejager@striata.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F2BC1A065A for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QrBEs2epU67n for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-x232.google.com (mail-vc0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13D241A02CF for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hy4so4714529vcb.23 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=za.striata.com; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=xmnqHER1GttUSK1Ay1KriOmP/AzTSjjumVSORizAGoA=; b=UFkqPeCkr/hzMEzVdsgy+rSFC60rjlNFuLIXe0w1SkeLWuYKcG7TUCCtCo/3aTNS/P gyfoN+xb2/W3Rd4NwmD2k9t5godeBgoffVXIoxdHIEhDLXnfMSHHXxNCoEijPsI3U6D3 E6McfmPsR9cxkabULmG8kYyv1os3hZs7fu4OA=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=xmnqHER1GttUSK1Ay1KriOmP/AzTSjjumVSORizAGoA=; b=AiKB5zOHTU6YJXPb0O12fN3TI0MbPX35OknGqiCZwCqsZHJk5qwr7UFtY0M3dQsPjJ Ahc7JZMv9Wym2kT6NKNybCx5EAFpi4B8RszY1hEoWbwO9bga9f2Udrl43BFS+bm2jMZs mTEGV0L6/yfxNEsb5qYbZ3YHqnm/MiEeL6/lFJZTM5Kt195lbB9ttiOZlidz8LSJXXc4 jEpCyFn7FSevL3OxLq/mDmyem0+hu443Gnme+9yKer9o9jMzL64YxRXyIKGqYJBG/RFv i3W9ynmuvzrGkhJzxH+cLsAMwK/MdxwIcTl+2sZnjtOuVUkPB+xZQsE/IzPNpg+WME5K xrdA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkStqq8TNsaJWYc1rI2sbwiUqQd5XUXLQaoe2sqn2TqKdlNpifjNVs2tvy/oMLSGt+2lJx+
X-Received: by 10.221.23.66 with SMTP id qz2mr29559241vcb.46.1410866882196; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.158.198 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Danie de Jager <danie.dejager@za.striata.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:27:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC6Wms59cN0+v87dL69o10uZ7B5TnmbiX6WZf7J9C+vE11PgDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1133375c56d5e305032d0b17"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/NTfzdzy-qHFNy6tPE8RAobYsjEA
Subject: [spfbis] Clarity on location of SPF records
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:29:19 -0000

​Hi,

I need
​clarity
 with the
​ possible​
location of the SPF record.

As example. If I have a domain abc.123.example.com with a MX record of
mail1.abc.123.example.com and mail2.abc.123.example.com there must be a SPF
record for:
mail1.abc.123.example.com to allow only its own A record
mail2.abc.123.example.com to allow only its own A record
and
abc.123.example.com to allow the 2 MX records.

or should
​all ​
the records be entered at example.com? (which performs a completely
different function using other mail servers and will have it's own set of
SPF rules)

The RFC uses:
   <domain> - the domain portion of the "MAIL FROM" or "HELO" identity.

Does <domain> always equal only to a fully qualified domain name?

​I'm investigating SPF records of some institutions that I believe are
wrong. ​All their SPF records are included only in their top domain.

Regards,
Danie de Jager

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email