nanog mailing list archives
Re: SPF Configurations
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2 () dcrocker net>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:11:31 -0800
Jeffrey Negro wrote:
SPF seems to be the way we could possibly avoid more spam filters, and delivery rate is very important to our company.
You've seen the anti-SPF rants. At the least, they should make clear to you that you should use SPF only and exactly for specific destinations that you already know require it. If you have any doubts about the requirement, you'll try to verify it; otherwise assume SPF won't solve your problems.
The other obvious mechanisms for validated identification to receiving operators is, of course, with DKIM. DKIM is entirely comfortable having a validated identifier (the d= parameter in the signature header field) be different than whatever is in the author header field (From:)
But either way, that's just identification.As already noted on the thread, what matters most is the set of content and operations practices, to establish a rock solid reputation both of you and of your clients.
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Current thread:
- SPF Configurations Jeffrey Negro (Dec 04)
- Re: SPF Configurations Suresh Ramasubramanian (Dec 04)
- Re: SPF Configurations Dave CROCKER (Dec 04)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: SPF Configurations Jeffrey Negro (Dec 04)
- Re: SPF Configurations Bret Clark (Dec 04)
- Re: SPF Configurations James Bensley (Dec 04)
- Re: SPF Configurations John Levine (Dec 04)
- AW: SPF Configurations Andre Engel (Dec 04)
- Re: AW: SPF Configurations John R. Levine (Dec 04)
- AW: AW: SPF Configurations Andre Engel (Dec 05)
- Re: SPF Configurations Bret Clark (Dec 04)
- Re: SPF Configurations Lars Eggert (Dec 04)
- Re: SPF Configurations Sean Donelan (Dec 06)
- Re: SPF Configurations Bill Stewart (Dec 06)