Discussion:
can someone explain this SPF fail to me
(too old to reply)
jeffrey j donovan
2013-11-21 17:40:22 UTC
Permalink
Greetings,

Can someone explain this error to me, I have never seen this one before. I tested my spf records and they seem fine.
check; beth.k12.pa.us, Redundant applicable 'v=spf1' sender policies found
(in reply to RCPT TO command)
Reporting-MTA: dns; smtp5.beth.k12.pa.us
in this , it looks like the user recipient address is incorrect or something along those lines.
I do have two spf records, one for my relays and one for google. The remote user has none.

any insight would be helpful.
thanks
-j
l***@rhsoft.net
2013-11-21 17:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by jeffrey j donovan
Greetings,
Can someone explain this error to me, I have never seen this one before. I tested my spf records and they seem fine.
check; beth.k12.pa.us, Redundant applicable 'v=spf1' sender policies found
(in reply to RCPT TO command)
Reporting-MTA: dns; smtp5.beth.k12.pa.us
in this , it looks like the user recipient address is incorrect or something along those lines.
I do have two spf records, one for my relays and one for google. The remote user has none
"Redundant applicable 'v=spf1' sender policies found" is pretty clear
Post by jeffrey j donovan
I do have two spf records, one for my relays and one for google
and that is what is called "redundant"
merge them in one

;; ANSWER SECTION:
beth.k12.pa.us. 28800 IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:209.96.107.0/24 ip4:209.96.96.0/24 mx:beth.k12.pa.us
mx:bethsd.org ~all"
beth.k12.pa.us. 28800 IN TXT "google-site-verification=JjPx6RdJsh1ILF2-zcX-g3xyhuuHPZxw28c_L2YVyFI"
beth.k12.pa.us. 28800 IN TXT "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ~all"
Wietse Venema
2013-11-21 17:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by jeffrey j donovan
Greetings,
Can someone explain this error to me, I have never seen this one before. I tested my spf records and they seem fine.
check; beth.k12.pa.us, Redundant applicable 'v=spf1' sender policies found
(in reply to RCPT TO command)
Reporting-MTA: dns; smtp5.beth.k12.pa.us
in this , it looks like the user recipient address is incorrect or something along those lines.
I do have two spf records, one for my relays and one for google. The remote user has none.
You have two TXT/SPF records.

Wietse
Kris Deugau
2013-11-21 17:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by jeffrey j donovan
Greetings,
Can someone explain this error to me, I have never seen this one before. I tested my spf records and they seem fine.
check; beth.k12.pa.us, Redundant applicable 'v=spf1' sender policies found
(in reply to RCPT TO command)
Reporting-MTA: dns; smtp5.beth.k12.pa.us
in this , it looks like the user recipient address is incorrect or something along those lines.
I do have two spf records, one for my relays and one for google.
I'm not completely clear on what you mean by "one for my relays and one
for google", but you have two SPF records published publicly. Don't Do
That. (I don't think it's strictly a violation of the spec, but clearly
the recipient is being picky.)

There's no reason not to combine them like so:

beth.k12.pa.us IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:209.96.107.0/24 ip4:209.96.96.0/24
mx:beth.k12.pa.us mx:bethsd.org include:_spf.google.com ~all"

unless you really need different SPF records to be visible to different
systems, which means you'll need to investigate DNS views so that any
given client only sees one SPF record.

-kgd
LunarZone
2013-11-21 20:20:49 UTC
Permalink
Why do you even have this record? "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ~all"
Did you get it from here? https://support.google.com/a/answer/178723
You already have what you need for Google site verification, so unless
you have a good specific reason for it, you should drop that line
altogether.
Also, there is a SPF Wizard here:
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/safety/content/technologies/senderid/wizard/



-----
Free English ,
Spanish ,
& Portuguese
Ecards for Birthdays, Christmas ,
Navidad ,
Valentines ,
& Love
--
View this message in context: http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/can-someone-explain-this-SPF-fail-to-me-tp63239p63248.html
Sent from the Postfix Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Scott Kitterman
2013-11-21 22:14:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by jeffrey j donovan
Post by jeffrey j donovan
Greetings,
Can someone explain this error to me, I have never seen this one
before. I tested my spf records and they seem fine.
554
SPF
Post by jeffrey j donovan
check; beth.k12.pa.us, Redundant applicable 'v=spf1' sender
policies found
Post by jeffrey j donovan
(in reply to RCPT TO command)
Reporting-MTA: dns; smtp5.beth.k12.pa.us
in this , it looks like the user recipient address is incorrect or
something along those lines.
Post by jeffrey j donovan
I do have two spf records, one for my relays and one for google.
I'm not completely clear on what you mean by "one for my relays and one
for google", but you have two SPF records published publicly. Don't Do
That. (I don't think it's strictly a violation of the spec, but
clearly
the recipient is being picky.)
It is an error. The recipient is choosing to reject based on an error condition that is specified in RFC 4408 (and still in the not quite released 4408bis).

Scott K
Benny Pedersen
2013-11-23 05:49:50 UTC
Permalink
554
SPF
check; beth.k12.pa.us, Redundant applicable 'v=spf1' sender
policies found
(in reply to RCPT TO command)
Reporting-MTA: dns; smtp5.beth.k12.pa.us
was it 2 txt records with v=spf1 on ncem-pa.org ?, there seems now no
spf on this domain, for https://dmarcian.com/spf-survey/beth.k12.pa.us
it seems ok
Benny Pedersen
2013-11-23 06:04:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by LunarZone
Why do you even have this record? "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com
~all"
Did you get it from here? https://support.google.com/a/answer/178723
You already have what you need for Google site verification,
google site verification is a valid spf record ?

seems ignored in dmarchian
Post by LunarZone
so unless
you have a good specific reason for it, you should drop that line
altogether.
are we wrap this inccrrect that if spf is used then the google thing is
not needed ?

removing spf would only benefit google :/
Post by LunarZone
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/safety/content/technologies/senderid/wizard/
famous for created sender-id problems :/
l***@rhsoft.net
2013-11-23 12:20:33 UTC
Permalink
check; beth.k12.pa.us, Redundant applicable 'v=spf1' sender policies found
(in reply to RCPT TO command)
Reporting-MTA: dns; smtp5.beth.k12.pa.us
was it 2 txt records with v=spf1 on ncem-pa.org?
no because this is the RCPT which will unlikely block himself
because it's own SPF while the S is for SENDER
there seems now no spf on this domain for
https://dmarcian.com/spf-survey/beth.k12.pa.us it seems ok
yes because it is answered and fixed long ago
why start to reply to a 3 days old thread without read existing anserws?

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: can someone explain this SPF fail to me
Datum: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 18:53:51 +0100
Greetings,
Can someone explain this error to me, I have never seen this one before. I tested my spf
records and they seem fine.
check; beth.k12.pa.us, Redundant applicable 'v=spf1' sender policies found
(in reply to RCPT TO command)
Reporting-MTA: dns; smtp5.beth.k12.pa.us
in this , it looks like the user recipient address is incorrect or something along those lines.
I do have two spf records, one for my relays and one for google. The remote user has none
"Redundant applicable 'v=spf1' sender policies found" is pretty clear
I do have two spf records, one for my relays and one for google
and that is what is called "redundant"
merge them in one

;; ANSWER SECTION:
beth.k12.pa.us. 28800 IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:209.96.107.0/24 ip4:209.96.96.0/24 mx:beth.k12.pa.us
mx:bethsd.org ~all"
beth.k12.pa.us. 28800 IN TXT "google-site-verification=JjPx6RdJsh1ILF2-zcX-g3xyhuuHPZxw28c_L2YVyFI"
beth.k12.pa.us. 28800 IN TXT "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ~all"
Loading...