SPF Record

[MatthewL]

Apologies if this thread is in the wrong section but following this thread it seemed right to put it in here.

 

So I now have my DMARC, SPF and DKIM records all set and working properly but I now have an issue.

 

On one domain I have a website with a contact us page and I think my combination of things is causing mail from that to go into junk mail.

 

Background is mail is with O365 and website is hosted on Dreamhost.

 

My DMARC record is:

v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:[email protected]; ruf=mailto:[email protected]; fo=1; adkim=s; aspf=s;

 

My SPF record is:

v=spf1 ip4:66.33.200.130 include:netblocks.dreamhost.com include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all

 

I have added in the IP4 and netblocks for the website. My records are all valid according to the checker on Dmarcian.com website. Running the message headers through the tool on MX Toolbox I get errors.

 

It see's my DMARC as all ok, the error them comes at spf:newberg.dreamhost.com:2603:10a6:401:2f::15, it says there is a SPF record published then no SPF record found. I think my issues lies at Dreamhost side of things but not 100% sure.

 

Anyone any suggestions, or even better anyone else host with Dreamhost (highly doubt it) or can point me to a domain to check that SPF record config.

[chaplic]

i'm a bit confused about 2603:10a6:401:2f::15 < where did that come from?

 

The SPF include from dreamhost only includes ip6:2607:F298::/32 address. What's the IPv6 of your website can you explicitly put it in the SPF record?

[MatthewL]

The IPv6 came from MXToolbox.

 

Where did you find the information about the SPF for Dreamhost as I am struggling to get anywhere?

[chaplic]

It's literally in your first post - I just looked up the SPF record referenced in the include.

 

netblocks.dreamhost.com

 

 

[KK20]

Apologies if this thread is in the wrong section but following this thread it seemed right to put it in here.

 

So I now have my DMARC, SPF and DKIM records all set and working properly but I now have an issue.

 

On one domain I have a website with a contact us page and I think my combination of things is causing mail from that to go into junk mail.

 

Background is mail is with O365 and website is hosted on Dreamhost.

 

My DMARC record is:

v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:[email protected]; ruf=mailto:[email protected]; fo=1; adkim=s; aspf=s;

 

My SPF record is:

v=spf1 ip4:66.33.200.130 include:netblocks.dreamhost.com include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all

 

I have added in the IP4 and netblocks for the website. My records are all valid according to the checker on Dmarcian.com website. Running the message headers through the tool on MX Toolbox I get errors.

 

It see's my DMARC as all ok, the error them comes at spf:newberg.dreamhost.com:2603:10a6:401:2f::15, it says there is a SPF record published then no SPF record found. I think my issues lies at Dreamhost side of things but not 100% sure.

 

Anyone any suggestions, or even better anyone else host with Dreamhost (highly doubt it) or can point me to a domain to check that SPF record config.

 

Receiving emails will break the SPF down as follows. Did the email for "domain.com" originate from 66.33.200.130 or "satisfy egress from spf netblocks.dreamhost.com" or "satisfy egress from spf spf.protection.outlook.com". If it does not then it will fail. Send an email to a client you can check the header even on a fail, look at the headers, look at the SPF fail IP and see where it is coming from, see who owns that IP, that is the SPF you need to get fixed. Perhaps dreamhost.com have a new email server or a different SPF list for "your host cluster" etc. Might be better to change to ~all for the time being if you cannot get a client that shows full fail spf emails (or even ? neutral them)

Edited January 26, 2021 by KK20

[MatthewL]

That is what I thought, I've tried various combinations with different IP's in and let the DNS etc refresh, I will see where I get with this latest one.

 

The only reason I stick with this host is its cheap and not necessarily the best but with only a few sites with a few pages on it works in my benefit.