Re: [dnswl-users] Testing SPF on DNSWL domains

[Alessandro Vesely <vesely@xxxxxxx>]

I think a relevant number of domains had tested rejecting on failure,
when SPF was new.  Later on it became clear that plain forwarding was
not going to go away, and hence reject-on-fail can be done in some
unusual cases only.  I'm not clear whether newcomers still (have to)
test it.

I changed the bottom sentence of that report to:

  A mail admin must whitelist all the domains who legitimately
  forward mail to her site, but there is no well-established method
  to learn and maintain such a domain list.

On Wed 20/Jun/2012 19:40:06 +0200 Patrick Domack wrote:

> I've always had issues just rejecting outright. Have since just let  
> the spam filters just mark it as junk, unless other things override  
> that setting, like valid reply to a submitted email, pinpals, ...
> 
> But in the testing time, we had so many phone calls about missing  
> emails and other issues, it just wasn't worth the policy to reject it  
> at that phase.
> 
> 
> Quoting Alessandro Vesely <vesely@xxxxxxx>:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> I tested the SPF behavior and policy of the listed domains.  The
>> results are displayed at http://www.tana.it/sw/spftest/
>>
>> I hoped to grasp who/why still does reject-on-fail, but could not
>> achieve that.  The results might still be interesting to read.  I
>> changed my SPF record to
>>   v=spf1 +ip4:62.94.243.226 ?exists:%{ir}.list.dnswl.org -all
>> after writing that.
>>
>> I'd be willing to repeat that test every month/year/decade, depending
>> on whether there's interest about it.
>>
>> Comments are welcome.
>> --