SPF question


We've had a DNS TXT record for SPF for a while.

When checking at: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/safety/content/technologies/senderid/wizard/, it says that we don't have one. I've gone through their wizard a few times and created it again, but, still it says it does not exist for our domain.

Any help provided would be greatly appreciated.

Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Giovanni HewardCommented:
Steve, run a WHOIS on your domain to obtain the public name server(s); verify the TXT record exists on those DNS servers and it's created under .domain.com (or at the same level as your MX records.)

.example.com txt "v=spf1 a mx ~all"
.example.com spf "v=spf1 a mx ~all"
skbohlerAuthor Commented:
Thanks for the reply.

We host our own DNS and our name servers on our server.

Our MX Record is on the level of "(same as parent folder)", the same as the  TXT record for SPF.

The SPF txt record looks like:

v=spf1 mx  a:groupoe.com  a:mail.groupoe.com mx:mail.groupoe.com -all

Our MX Record is for FQDN "mail.groupoe.com"
Giovanni HewardCommented:
Check DNS propagation @ http://www.whatsmydns.net/#TXT/groupoe.com

It looks like your TTL is set to 8 hours?

v=spf1 a mx -all is the optimal value;

a:groupoe.com = a; both resolve to
a:mail.groupoe.com = mx; both resolve to
mx:mail.groupoe.com = no value; there is no MX record at the .mail.groupoe.com level; this would exist if you're receiving email as skbohler@mail.groupoe.com
Big Business Goals? Which KPIs Will Help You

The most successful MSPs rely on metrics – known as key performance indicators (KPIs) – for making informed decisions that help their businesses thrive, rather than just survive. This eBook provides an overview of the most important KPIs used by top MSPs.

skbohlerAuthor Commented:
So, should the TTL be set lower?

I should change it to 'all'?
Giovanni HewardCommented:
SPF mechanisms can be prefixed with one of four qualifiers:

"+"      Pass
"-"      Fail
"~"      SoftFail
"?"      Neutral

So "v=spf1 a mx -all" allows the domains MX and A records to send mail for the domain and prohibits all others.

Translated... allow and to send mail, deny all others.
Has this issue been resolved? The SPF record for your domain looks somewhat different from what you described earlier.
Giovanni HewardCommented:
The world is seeing:

v=spf1 a:debriefnow.azurewebsites.net a:groupoe.com a:goebase.com a:debriefnow.com a:mail.groupoe.com a:mail.goebase.com -all

ttl = 3547 (59 mins 7 secs)
skbohlerAuthor Commented:
I just made the change now.
Giovanni HewardCommented:
I think it's possible the Microsoft site is reporting a false negative due to a bug on their end.  You have another TXT record (MS=ms28591390) which they may be attempting to process (incorrectly).

If you use another validator site, such as kitterman.com, you'll see the record exists and is parsed correctly.

BTW, you can create a SPF record type as well, which matches your TXT record. (Inferred in Comment ID: 39511655)

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
skbohlerAuthor Commented:
Thanks. I don't see SPF as a type to choose when creating a DNS record in IIS 7, however.
Giovanni HewardCommented:
I personally like (and use) CloudNS.net; they have 13+ name severs strategically placed across the globe and permit both TXT (16) and SPF (99) record types.

That being said, an IETF draft, which obsoletes RFC 4408 , states:
Studies have shown that RRTYPE 99 has not seen any substantial use, and in fact its existence and mechanism defined in [RFC4408] has led to some interoperability issues.  Accordingly, its use is now obsolete, and new implementations are not to use it.
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.