Re: do you use SPF TXT RRs? (RFC4408)

[John Adams <jna () retina net>]

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.

-j


On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Michael Thomas <mike () 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 () 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