SPF record

230 views
Skip to first unread message

Benno Goedhart

unread,
Aug 4, 2014, 4:33:06 AM8/4/14
to power...@googlegroups.com
Hi all,

I'm trying to add a SPF-record . I used to do this with TXT records, but now I noticed there's also the choice for SPF in PowerAdmin. Though, when I choose this option, the record doesn't get added to the zonefile. Also when I try to add a TXT record for SPF, the quotes are removed in the content part. Querying the DNS after this, results in nothing. What am I doing wrong?

Chris Hunt

unread,
Aug 6, 2014, 1:49:41 AM8/6/14
to power...@googlegroups.com
I believe it depends on your DNS server daemon, but i believe use of this RR type has been abandoned in favor of TXT records.  At $DAYJOB, we do not permit the use of SPF RRs in our implementation of PowerDNS.  We run PowerDNS.  Dunno about the quotes. 

HTH
-Chris


On 8/4/2014 1:33 AM, Benno Goedhart wrote:
Hi all,

I'm trying to add a SPF-record . I used to do this with TXT records, but now I noticed there's also the choice for SPF in PowerAdmin. Though, when I choose this option, the record doesn't get added to the zonefile. Also when I try to add a TXT record for SPF, the quotes are removed in the content part. Querying the DNS after this, results in nothing. What am I doing wrong?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Poweradmin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to poweradmin+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Jo Rhett

unread,
Aug 6, 2014, 5:15:05 AM8/6/14
to power...@googlegroups.com
Reverse is true. SPF records are preferred, TXT records are a fallback mechanism. See http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4408.txt sections 3.1.1 and 4.5. RFC 6686 indicated that RRTYPE 99 was uncommon, but indicated several ways to improve support for it without ever saying to stop using it.
-- 
Jo Rhett
+1 (415) 999-1798
Skype: jorhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.

Author of 
  - Learning MCollective: http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920032472.do
  - Instant Puppet 3 Starter: http://www.netconsonance.com/instant-puppet-3-starter-book/

Darac Marjal

unread,
Aug 6, 2014, 8:49:26 AM8/6/14
to power...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 01:37:37AM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
> Reverse is true. SPF records are preferred, TXT records are a fallback
> mechanism. See [1]http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4408.txt sections 3.1.1 and
> 4.5. RFC 6686 indicated that RRTYPE 99 was uncommon, but indicated several
> ways to improve support for it without ever saying to stop using it.

RFC 7208 obsoletes 4408 and states:

3.1. DNS Resource Records


SPF records MUST be published as a DNS TXT (type 16) Resource Record
(RR) [RFC1035] only. The character content of the record is encoded
as [US-ASCII]. Use of alternative DNS RR types was supported in
SPF's experimental phase but has been discontinued.


> On Aug 5, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Chris Hunt <[2]dharm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I believe it depends on your DNS server daemon, but i believe use of
> this RR type has been abandoned in favor of TXT records.  At $DAYJOB, we
> do not permit the use of SPF RRs in our implementation of PowerDNS.  We
> run PowerDNS.  Dunno about the quotes. 
>
> HTH
> -Chris
>
> On 8/4/2014 1:33 AM, Benno Goedhart wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> I'm trying to add a SPF-record . I used to do this with TXT records,
> but now I noticed there's also the choice for SPF in PowerAdmin.
> Though, when I choose this option, the record doesn't get added to the
> zonefile. Also when I try to add a TXT record for SPF, the quotes are
> removed in the content part. Querying the DNS after this, results in
> nothing. What am I doing wrong?
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Poweradmin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to [3]poweradmin+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit [4]https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Poweradmin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to [5]poweradmin+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit [6]https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> -- 
> Jo Rhett
> +1 (415) 999-1798
> Skype: jorhett
> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and
> internet projects.
>
> Author of 
>   - Learning
> MCollective: [7]http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920032472.do
>   - Instant Puppet 3
> Starter: [8]http://www.netconsonance.com/instant-puppet-3-starter-book/
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Poweradmin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [9]poweradmin+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit [10]https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> References
>
> Visible links
> 1. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4408.txt
> 2. mailto:dharm...@gmail.com
> 3. mailto:poweradmin+...@googlegroups.com
> 4. https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> 5. mailto:poweradmin+...@googlegroups.com
> 6. https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> 7. http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920032472.do
> 8. http://www.netconsonance.com/instant-puppet-3-starter-book/
> 9. mailto:poweradmin+...@googlegroups.com
> 10. https://groups.google.com/d/optout
signature.asc

Jo Rhett

unread,
Aug 7, 2014, 2:23:34 AM8/7/14
to power...@googlegroups.com
On Aug 6, 2014, at 3:28 AM, Darac Marjal <maili...@darac.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 01:37:37AM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
>> Reverse is true. SPF records are preferred, TXT records are a fallback
>> mechanism. See [1]http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4408.txt sections 3.1.1 and
>> 4.5. RFC 6686 indicated that RRTYPE 99 was uncommon, but indicated several
>> ways to improve support for it without ever saying to stop using it.
>
> RFC 7208 obsoletes 4408 and states:


When looking up RFCs you really should read the status. That proposed text is highly debated, and has near-zero chance of approval even with major editing.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages