Cloudron makes it easy to run web apps like WordPress, Nextcloud, GitLab on your server. Find out more or install now.


Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Bookmarks
  • Search
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

Cloudron Forum

Apps - Status | Demo | Docs | Install
  1. Cloudron Forum
  2. Discuss
  3. Bug Report - SPF Check not RFC compliant

Bug Report - SPF Check not RFC compliant

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Discuss
2 Posts 2 Posters 14 Views 3 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • O Offline
    O Offline
    owophelia
    wrote last edited by
    #1

    Hello,

    I recently restructured SPF records and noticed that cloudrons chcek for a correct SPF record ist not rfc compliant.

    It seems to me that the SPF check in the UI (Email -> Domains) fails to check any include statements in the SPF-TXT record for a domain. This leads to cloudron reporting an incorrect SPF record despite the SPF record being correct.

    Cloudron is expecting something like

    TXT in foo.com
    v=spf1 a:bar.foo.com ~all

    and reports an error for
    TXT in bar.com
    v=spf1 include:_spf.foo.com ~all

    TXT in _spf.foo.com
    v=spf1 a:bar.foo.com ~all

    Despite being a correct SPF record, with less than 10 recursive DNS Querries needed.

    I totally understand why the webinterface "recommends" me to use the expected value, being easier to understand and more user friendly. Nevertheless I would expect cloudron to not report a correct (and working) SPF record as faulty.

    For reference: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7208#section-4.6

    1 Reply Last reply
    3
    • girishG Offline
      girishG Offline
      girish
      Staff
      wrote last edited by
      #2

      Right, the check is simply hardcoded to check for a: entry in the SPF. To check all the possibilities would be quite complicated, since we will have to implement the full SPF spec just for diagnostics.

      (What you see on the dashboard is just a diagnostic. The mail server Haraka has a fuller SPF implementation).

      1 Reply Last reply
      0

      Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.

      Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.

      With your input, this post could be even better 💗

      Register Login
      Reply
      • Reply as topic
      Log in to reply
      • Oldest to Newest
      • Newest to Oldest
      • Most Votes


      • Login

      • Don't have an account? Register

      • Login or register to search.
      • First post
        Last post
      0
      • Categories
      • Recent
      • Tags
      • Popular
      • Bookmarks
      • Search