[119975] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SPF Configurations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave CROCKER)
Sat Dec 5 00:12:41 2009
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:11:31 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
To: Jeffrey Negro <jnegro@billtrust.com>
In-Reply-To: <3C5B084431653D4A9C469A22AFCDB5B9042929E8@LOGAN.billtrust.local>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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
