SPF Overview
Suppose example.com wants to publish SPF. It expects MTAs everywhere to read its SPF record and use it to reject forgery attempts. It hopes SPF reduces the volume of joe-job bounces and bogus abuse reports. So it adds the following line to its zone file:
example.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 a mx ptr -all"
The v=spf1 version string identifies this as an SPF record. The -all means reject all mail by default. Domains that don't send any mail, such as altavista.com, can get by with simply v=spf1 -all. But if the domain does send mail, it declares mechanisms that describe how legitimate mail should look. Mechanisms go in the middle, before -all. The first mechanism to match provides a result for the SPF query. -all always matches and so belongs at the end.
Basic SPF
A: the A mechanism means the IP address of example.com is permitted to send mail from example.com. If you want to say the IP address of some-other.com is permitted, you can say a:some-other.com. You can use as many A mechanisms as you want.
MX: the MX mechanism means the MX servers for example.com all are permitted to send mail from example.com. If you want to say the MX servers for some-other.com are permitted, you can say mx:some-other.com. You can use as many MX mechanisms as you want.
PTR: the PTR mechanism says if a host has a PTR record that ends in example.com, it is permitted to send mail from example.com. This would be a good choice for Yahoo, whose mail server names all end in yahoo.com. It would be a bad choice for a broadband provider like Comcast. If you want to say servers whose names end in some-other.com are permitted to send mail from example.com, you can say ptr:some-other.com. You can use as many PTR mechanisms as you want.
IP4: to say the class C network of 192.0.2.0 is permitted to send mail from example.com, you would write ip4:192.0.2.0/24.
Mechanisms are interpreted left-to-right. Using v=spf1 a mx ptr -all first would check whether the connecting client was found in the A record for the domain or, failing that, in its list of MX servers. Then the MTA would check to see whether the hostname of the client matched the domain. If none of the mechanisms matched, -all would be evaluated, the result would be fail and the MTA would be justified in rejecting the mail.
A, MX, PTR and IP4 are enough for the overwhelming majority of domains. The setup wizard at spf.pobox.com/wizard.html can help you configure SPF for your domain. But if your situation is complex, you can use the mechanisms described in the “Advanced SPF” sidebar.
SPF has a number of built-in mechanisms. The basic ones let you designate the hosts that send mail from your domain. This works well for almost all domains out there, because each domain's mail comes only from a small set of hosts. But if mail from your domain is distinguished in some other way, say you always sign it with S/MIME, instead of typing a or mx you can type smime.
Using designated sender mechanisms (A, MX, PTR and IP4) is one possible approach to sender authentication. New sender authentication methods are being developed. SPF is extensible, though, so it can work gracefully with them. SPF plugins that understand future extension mechanisms will be able to interpret them correctly. SPF plugins that don't understand those mechanisms will return unknown, and your domain will be treated as though it did not have an SPF record at all.
Today, spammers forge domain names. Tomorrow, they might forge hostnames. They might try to joe-job your laptop by making up username@ibook.example.com. It's a good idea to protect your subdomains as well. You should start with your MX servers and move on to other hosts with A records. Here's why.
Bounce messages are sent with MAIL FROM: <>. The null sender address ensures that bounces don't themselves bounce and create a loop. When SPF sees the null sender address, it falls back to the hostname given in the HELO command. When your MTA sends a bounce message, it announces its hostname in the HELO command it sends. If that hostname has an SPF A mechanism listed, the message passes. So SPF prevents HELO forgery as well.
Today’s modular x86 servers are compute-centric, designed as a least common denominator to support a wide range of IT workloads. Those generic, virtualized IT workloads have much different resource optimization requirements than hyperscale and cloud applications. They have resulted in a “one size fits all” enterprise IT architecture that is not optimized for a specific set of IT workloads, and especially not emerging hyperscale workloads, such as web applications, big data, and object storage. In this report, you will learn how shifting the focus from traditional compute-centric IT architectures to an innovative disaggregated fabric-based architecture can optimize and scale your data center.
Sponsored by AMD
Built-in forensics, incident response, and security with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Every security policy provides guidance and requirements for ensuring adequate protection of information and data, as well as high-level technical and administrative security requirements for a system in a given environment. Traditionally, providing security for a system focuses on the confidentiality of the information on it. However, protecting the data integrity and system and data availability is just as important. For example, when processing United States intelligence information, there are three attributes that require protection: confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
Learn more about catching the bad guy in this free white paper.
Sponsored by DLT Solutions
| Making Linux and Android Get Along (It's Not as Hard as It Sounds) | May 16, 2013 |
| Drupal Is a Framework: Why Everyone Needs to Understand This | May 15, 2013 |
| Home, My Backup Data Center | May 13, 2013 |
| Non-Linux FOSS: Seashore | May 10, 2013 |
| Trying to Tame the Tablet | May 08, 2013 |
| Dart: a New Web Programming Experience | May 07, 2013 |
- New Products
- Making Linux and Android Get Along (It's Not as Hard as It Sounds)
- Drupal Is a Framework: Why Everyone Needs to Understand This
- A Topic for Discussion - Open Source Feature-Richness?
- Home, My Backup Data Center
- RSS Feeds
- New Products
- Trying to Tame the Tablet
- What's the tweeting protocol?
- Dart: a New Web Programming Experience
- Reply to comment | Linux Journal
1 hour 7 min ago - Drupal is an Awesome CMS and a Crappy development framework
5 hours 46 min ago - IT industry leaders
8 hours 8 min ago - Reply to comment | Linux Journal
1 day 57 min ago - Reply to comment | Linux Journal
1 day 3 hours ago - Reply to comment | Linux Journal
1 day 4 hours ago - great post
1 day 5 hours ago - Google Docs
1 day 5 hours ago - Reply to comment | Linux Journal
1 day 10 hours ago - Reply to comment | Linux Journal
1 day 11 hours ago
Enter to Win an Adafruit Prototyping Pi Plate Kit for Raspberry Pi

It's Raspberry Pi month at Linux Journal. Each week in May, Adafruit will be giving away a Pi-related prize to a lucky, randomly drawn LJ reader. Winners will be announced weekly.
Fill out the fields below to enter to win this week's prize-- a Prototyping Pi Plate Kit for Raspberry Pi.
Congratulations to our winners so far:
- 5-8-13, Pi Starter Pack: Jack Davis
- 5-15-13, Pi Model B 512MB RAM: Patrick Dunn
- Next winner announced on 5-21-13!
Free Webinar: Linux Backup and Recovery
Most companies incorporate backup procedures for critical data, which can be restored quickly if a loss occurs. However, fewer companies are prepared for catastrophic system failures, in which they lose all data, the entire operating system, applications, settings, patches and more, reducing their system(s) to “bare metal.” After all, before data can be restored to a system, there must be a system to restore it to.
In this one hour webinar, learn how to enhance your existing backup strategies for better disaster recovery preparedness using Storix System Backup Administrator (SBAdmin), a highly flexible bare-metal recovery solution for UNIX and Linux systems.




Comments
Re: SPF Overview
I read this article after reading the May 2004 article because my subscription just started up. So, interestingly, everything seemed to flow. Thank goodness Linux Journal posts their articles!
I found this one here because I read the other article and thought "Hey, I need to do/learn this! Where's that previous article." A few clicks later, there it was. :)
I can understand the first person's frustrational comment about the definition of SPF. I explained a little of what I was doing to my signifigant other, and the initial response, after defining SPF, was "Oh, I thought it was like sunblock. You know, like SPF-15, SPF-45.."
In a way, it is like sunblock. It prevents your systems from burning up from processing all of that spam!
Re: SPF Overview
Just for the record, the other half of this article, which is obviously more detailed due to the complexity (setting up the email side of thigns), is in the April issue:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7328
SPF?
I don't believe this article even once tells us what SPF stands for.* Perhaps it means nothing, the latest fad in (non-) acronyms.
How did this piece make it past an editor?
*For the frustrated reader: it stands for Sender Policy Framework.
Re: SPF?
You seem to be in the possession of Internet access... A quick trip over to spf.pobox.com would have answered your question rather quickly ;)
Re: SPF?
I think you are missing out on some experience when it comes to technical writing. Technical lingo should be explained, but not to the depth of the PDR (Physician's Desk Refeence). Because the industry is so acronym-laden, many have found a common style to use the acronum once and place an explanation in parantheses afterwards, describing the acronym or term, but after that, to use the acronym (only) as the meaning has been explained. The initial reference can be seen in my reference to the PDR above.
And finally, but most importantly, material should be written|developed|edited so a reader doesn't have to read a sentence more than once for comprehension. Have you ever found yourself halfway into a sentence (technical, romance, etc. and say, "Huh?" then go back to the beginning of the sentence and start reading it again? That's an example of a bad book. Bad book! Bad bad book.
Re: SPF?
I agree. Thanks for suppling the definition. I though the article was good.