Re: [exim] Is this against any rules in the RFCs?

Top Pagina
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Auteur: John W. Baxter
Datum:  
Aan: exim-users
Onderwerp: Re: [exim] Is this against any rules in the RFCs?
On 1/24/2005 1:29, "Odhiambo G. Washington" <wash@???> wrote:

> * Avleen Vig <lists-exim@???> [20050124 11:38]: wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 11:02:39AM +0300, Odhiambo G. Washington wrote:
>>> I hope you had a nice weekend!
>>
>> Great thanks!
>>
>>> Q1. Is that setup RFC-ignorant or RFC-legal as far as mail exchange on
>>>     the Internet is concerned? I'm in doubt, especially regarding
>>>     sender verifications and callouts.

>>
>> There is nothing wrong with your setup.
>> Many organizations set up their mail like this.
>> It's very standard to have your mail go OUT through boxes which do not
>> accept email from the internet (ie, they are just relays).
>
>
> Thanks! At least this confirms to me that I still retain my sanity! I
> was greatly in doubt even though I thought I knew this like catechism ;)
>
>
>>> Q2. Must I publish this box as one of my MXes? The reason I am asking
>>>     this is because GMX.de (they use SPF) is already rejecting e-mails
>>>     sent via this server saying:

>>
>> No. GMX.de are broken, very badly broken.
>> They're probably not accepting email from several major ISP's, including
>> AOL and Earthlink in the US, if this is the only reason they're not
>> accepting your mail.
>
>
> Good to know they are. That would explain why only gmx.de were denying
> mail from that server, and not exim.org servers, etc. Perhaps there is
> a way to track down their Admin and tell him/her to forget about SPF??
>
>
>> I can't find an SPF record for your domain. Can you show me what you
>> have so far?
>
> I used the spf.pobox.com helper script, which generated the data that I
> then included in wananchi.com zone file:
>
> wananchi.com IN TXT "v=spf1 mx a:msa.wananchi.com a:smtp-out.wananchi.com \
> a:longonot.wananchi.com a:ns2.wananchi.com a:mail.wananchi.com ~all"
>
> Isn't that correct?


Aside from David's comment about ? Vs ~, and assuming that continuation is
allowed in that context, that looks OK.

However, as with David, it doesn't show up here.

Is there anything of interest in your name server log for the time you told
the name server about the revised zone file?

--John

# dig wananchi.com txt

; <<>> DiG 9.2.1 <<>> wananchi.com txt
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 37151
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;wananchi.com.                  IN      TXT


;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
wananchi.com.           10765   IN      SOA     ns1.wananchi.com.
hostmaster.wananchi.com. 2005012409 28800 3600 604800 86400


;; Query time: 1 msec
;; SERVER: 172.21.2.3#53(172.21.2.3)
;; WHEN: Mon Jan 24 14:27:03 2005
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 81