| Newsgroups |
gmane.ietf.asrg |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
On 12/07, Paul Smith wrote:
> >>As a random thought, would there be the possibility to add some sort of
> >>marker on a parent domain to say 'we understand MX records, so we don't use
> >>A records for mail within this domain'? So, if you receive mail from
> >>'bibble.twitter.com', you check the TXT records for 'twitter.com' which tell
> >>you that subdomains/hosts without an MX record won't have mail, and since
> >>there isn't an MX record for 'bibble.twitter.com', you can reject it/treat
> >>it as spoofed.
> >same as above. MX for bibble.twitter.com is only to receive emails.
> >Nothing prevents [email protected] to send unless you put a
> >TXT "v=spf1 -all" for it !
> >
> But it would help tremendously, without needing to add SPF records
> for each host in a domain.
>
> This is because there would be no MX record for
> 'bibble.twitter.com', so you could assume (because of this 'new
> rule') that that sender email address is invalid, because there is
> no way of replying to it.
>
> Yes, the MX is for receiving mail only, according to the SMTP
> standard, BUT if you work on the assumption that you have to be able
> to reply to the sender (which is a common enough assumption), then
> it ALSO has to be valid for sending mail.
I think this makes sense, but I think it would make more sense if there was
a way to just specify in the SPF record for, for example, twitter.com, that
all legit senders for all subdomains are included in the highest level SPF
record.
I don't know, I'm not a huge fan of SPF at this point, I'm not sure it's
worth the work.
--
"Forget not that the earth delights to feel your bare feet and the winds
long to play with your hair." - Kahlil Gibran
http://www.ChaosReigns.com