SPF records: ~all flag

We use a couple of different email vendors for sending external mail. Both suggest using a: ~all flag for SPF. Can you have multiple ~all flags in an SPF record? Or can I only use this once at the end of the SPF record?

Using ~all flags at the end once should suffice.
You can have something like:
v=spf1 ip4:x.x.x.x/16 (CIDR) mx ptr:Sender1.domain.com ptr:Sender2.domain.com include:domain.com ~all
As you can see there is only one ~all flags used.
You can validate yours by using Microsoft's Sender ID Framework SPF Record Wizard utility:
Sender ID Framework SPF Record Wizard
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/safety/content/technologies/senderid/wizard/
More information on Sender Policy Framework can be found via the following link:
http://www.openspf.org/SPF_Record_Syntax
CK

Similar Messages

Should I use an SPF Record?

Our site allows people to send a request to various subscribers by email. The emails are sent with the FROM being the requesters email address so that our subscribers can reply to them directly.
In the last week we have received a lot of bounced emails from accounts that don't exist on our server. I think setting up an SPF record could help in this regard.
However, given the way our service works, does it make sense to set up an SPF record?
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks.

Adding an SPF record would help in regards to people using your domain name as the source of spam messages. It wouldn't have any effect on emails you send out under other people's name, though.
If your server sends out a message from [email protected] your SPF record doesn't come into play at all, but under those circumstances you wouldn't get the bounce message anyway - it would go to [email protected] However, your IP address may get flagged as sending bogus email.
In any case I'd add a SPF record. It's not hard to do, and it helps insulate your domain from problems. There's no downside to having it unless users in your domain regularly send mail from other mail servers (which they shouldn't be doing anyway).

Leopard DNS Server: Zones with SPF records?

Hi all,
I'm trying to figure out how to setup SPF (Sender Policy Framework) records for some domains I'm currently managing with a Leopard DNS server and I don't see any documentation anywhere. Can someone please tell me if it's even an option? I'm new to running DNS with Leopard, so I could use all the help I can get.
Sincerely,
Israel
Message was edited by: Israel Thompson
Message was edited by: Israel Thompson

Israel Thompson wrote:
So let me see if I have this right. Any changes I want to make that will not be editable in the GUI, I want to do them in db.mydomain.com instead of db.mydomain.com.zone.apple? Easy enough. However I tried adding "v=spf1 a mx ~all" (with quotes) to my file and it appeared to have broken the dns zone. What’s the proper way to enter these in manually? Can you give me an example of how it looks in your zone files? I’ve pasted a sample of mine below. Tell me if anything is wrong.
Israel,
I am new to Leopard Server - so I'm no DNS guru. I, too, have not used a DNS setup tool that requires a FQDN just associate an IP with the base of the domain (mydomain.com.). How did you get your 'mydomain.com. IN A 11.22.33.44' accomplished? Did you create a new A record and put mydomain.com. in the Machine Name field?
Here's my setup:
========================
db.mydomain.com
========================
;THE FOLLOWING INCLUDE WAS ADDED BY SERVER ADMIN. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE.
$INCLUDE /var/named/zones/db.mydomain.com.zone.apple
========================
db.mydomain.com.zone.apple
========================
$TTL 10800
mydomain.com. IN SOA ns1.mydomain.com. admin.mydomain.com. (
2008010951 ;Serial
7200 ;Refresh
3600 ;Retry
604800 ;Expire
345600 ;Negative caching TTL
mydomain.com. IN NS ns1.mydomain.com.
mydomain.com. IN NS ns.mydomain.com.
mydomain.com. IN A 64.251.168.218
mydomain.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 ip:64.251.168.218 ip:64.251.168.220 ~all"
www IN A 64.251.168.218
mail.mydomain.com. IN A 64.251.168.220
mail.mydomain.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 a ~all"
xserve.mydomain.com. IN A 64.251.168.218
xserve.mydomain.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 a ~all"
ns IN A 64.251.168.218
ns1 IN A 64.251.168.220
mydomain.com. IN MX 10 mail.mydomain.com.
... where xserve.mydomain.com is my machine's hostname.
I have a funky setup for DNS because I don't have a different, or second, DNS server (just the one on my Xserve with everything else) and my name servers are under this zone. I added the two IPs for my mail and hostname to the base SPF record. Someone could still spoof from using the name or www domains (same IPs) but I can check for it using Postfix up front. I also added "v=spf1 a ~all" in case another mail server tries to check the mailing server or hostname directly.
You'll usually want to set a TXT "v=spf1 ~all" (SPF null) for any records that have no possibility for mail origins, like your ftp and mobile, but it appears you also have a similar issue to me - those services will be running under the same IPs as the mail service. This is why I added "v=spf1 a ~all" to all essential services (mail and hostname). I don't know what will happen if you add an SPF null to an unnecessary service that happens to also have the same IP. (Will the IP get blocked in a cache during a lookup??) So I didn't add an SPF TXT to those domains. I'm a little confused at this point. I should probably read more about it.
http://www.openspf.org/FAQ/Common_mistakes
Also, you'll notice I added FQDN to mail and xserve. If I do this and ensure they are in my reverse DNS PTR records then I've seen that when I add new zone records with same IPs (like for another domain) then the PTR records don't keep switching to the newest entry (why does it do that?).
I don't think your use of the . in the CNAME records is correct. I think the CNAME records are probably unnecessary since you have already fully defined the domains in A records. Also, those A records probably don't need FQDNs (with the ending .). I only added mine for the reason noted above, concerning the PTR records.
I hope someone who knows some more than I can chime in on this.
Larry
Message was edited by: Larry_S (removed mx from SPF TXT for main domain record, as it was redundant with the ip:)

Virtual mail hosts: 255 character limit on SPF records

This one was a surprise to me, and caused a lot of headache, so I thought I'd pass it along.
I'm running multiple virtual mail hosts off of my doughty PowerMac single G5 1.8GHz running OS X Server 10.4.11. Some of the outgoing mail was being bounced as spam because a) there wasn't an SPF record on any of the domains and b) the domain of the mailserver didn't always match the domain of the sender. (Most often, it went out under the hostname of the server, cerberus.limbo.jcf.org—which is useless, since that's a LAN address.)
Trying to be a good citizen (and make sure that all of everyone's mail got through), I added SPF records that explicitly named each and every mailserver on the machine, just so that everything was clear and aboveboard—but they ended up being about 500 characters long.
Fastforward a week or two... and I was having problems with my DNS zones loading—I'd get errors that they'd timed out. After pulling my hair out for a while, I discovered that TXT records have a limit of 255 characters (including spaces, etc.) Some folks running servers on non-OS X Server machines have split the records over multiple TXT records (does that even work?), but you get exactly one TXT record per OS X Server machine: the Comment box.
I've now simplified the SPF records so that they read something like this:
+v=spf1 a mx mx:cerberus.limbo.jcf.org mx:cerberus.jcf.org mx:jcf.org ip:173.164.140.96/30 ip:207.58.140.213/30 include:comcast.businessclass.net include:comcast.com -all+
To translate:
• +v=spf1 a mx+ It authorizes deliveries from any IP listed in the DNS zone, and from any mailserver defined in the zone
• +mx:cerberus.limbo.jcf.org mx:cerberus.jcf.org mx:jcf.org+ It also explicitly authorizes deliveries from the server's main LAN and internet DNS names as well as the domain of the foundation for which I work (and through which emails are occasionally relayed)
• +ip:173.164.140.96/30 ip:207.58.140.213/30+ Next it authorizes the public static IP blocks for the server and the foundation's remote server
• +include:comcast.businessclass.net include:comcast.com+ Finally it includes the domain names of the ISP through which most of the mail are relayed
• -all The last item says that if the mail didn't originate from one of those addresses, it isn't ours.
(I think that I've got that right. If I've botched it anywhere, let me know, okay?)
That's 169 characters. The DNS zones loaded happily, and the mail seems to be going out without getting bounced. So far so good!
(There's probably a way to get the hostname on each email to match the domain from which it is being addressed, but I haven't gotten there yet.)
Message was edited by: David Kudler

Most often, it went out under the hostname of the server, cerberus.limbo.jcf.org—which is useless, since that's a LAN address.
You can control this via the myhostname setting in Postfix. This defines the name it uses to identify itself to remote mail servers, which sounds like it'll address a lot of your issues.
I added SPF records that explicitly named each and every mailserver on the machine, just so that everything was clear and aboveboard—but they ended up being about 500 characters long.
OK, this doesn't make sense. You don't need to list every virtual hostname for every domain.
All you need to do is add this specific mail server's address in each domain.
There's no requirement that the hostname of the mail server matches the domain name, so it's entirely valid to create an SPF record in domain1.com that lists mailserver.someotherdomain.com as authoritative. Then, as long as postfix's myhostname says it's mailserver.someotherdomain.com and your reverse DNS resolves to that address your problem is solved.
...but you get exactly one TXT record per OS X Server machine: the Comment box.
Unless you edit your zone file directly and add whatever other records you like. However, given the above, I don't think the 255-character limit should be an issue.
Even if you didn't want to mess with your zone files directly there's still a way around that - SPF allows for an 'include' record which basically tells remote servers to include the record from some other domain, so for each domain you could just tell it to include some other domain's record (which, in turn, could include another domain) allowing virtually unlimited record length (or, at least, 255 characters per domain you manage).
SPF Includes are covered here.
• include:comcast.businessclass.net include:comcast.com Finally it includes the domain names of the ISP through which most of the mail are relayed
Bzzzz. You've now allowed any other customer of comcastbusiness.net and comcast.com to send mail on your behalf. You probably don't want to do that. When you consider that 'comcast.com' includes every one of their residential customers you can see that you really don't want to do that.

Creating SPF records

Having run a few tests on our Server, on of the errors that has come up is that we don't have any SPF records.
Doing a search sends me to the following site, but it always comes up with the error - System Maintenance in progress. Please try again later.
microsoft.com/mscorp/safety/content/technologies/senderid/wizard/
Having looked at some other sites, I come up with different answers.
Here is my example, our website is hosted by another company, but we run our own mail server. I have used the following examples
domain - mydomain.com
mail server ip - 1.2.3.4
One wizard come up with the following to add to my DNS
mydomain.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:1.2.3.4"
Another wizard comes up with the following
"v=spf1 ip4:1.2.3.4 ?all"
Another wizard comes up with the following
"v=spf1 ip4:1.2.3.4 -all"
Any advice appreciated.
Trevor

Hi
No ones mentioned this that I;ve seen. But the SPF settings get applied to the domain at Nameserver level, so not on the local server, but wherever is configured that
www.mydomain.com - goes to 10.20.30.40 and remote.mydomain.com goes to 1.2.3.4 and mail.mydomain.com go to 1.2.3.4 etc
On the name server you set up a new TXT for .mydomain.com
the values need to have
v=spf1 - to show this is the SPF settings
I would then add the IP's and Domains of any PC authorised to send emails on your behalf
i.e. +ip4:1.2.3.4 +a:mail.mydomain.com +a:remote.mydomain.com - This covers your server doing email directly from it... some SPF servers I've found look for the a record and not IP when tracing back (usually pain ones, so never hurts to add as resolves
to same place)
If your website hosted elsewhere has an email form on it you'll need to authorise your webserver to send on your behalf as it will most likely send from a @mydomain.com email address (your own server could class it as spam if not included)
so +ip4:x.x.x.x(webserver IP) +a:www.mydomain.com
As for the all bit
-all is best - means no one else can pretend to be you. I;ve not used ?all, but due to the experience I'm about to explain it could be useful (saves having to use ~all which makes spf pointless)
If you use -all SPF checkers will only allow emails to come from authorised senders. This leads to a problem with people they email without things set up right... had a few problems. A clients customer, had a spam checker that was offsite, that forwards
the email on to the server. so email goes from SenderA to SpamCheckerB. SpamCheckerB scans the email and then forwards on to mailserverC
MailserverC is also set up to check for spam including SPF..... problems is the email has been 'officially' sent from SpamcheckerB and not SenderA.... thus gets rejected by SPF
If senderA doesn;t use SPF it all goes through fine, or if SPF set to ~all goes through fine
Obviously this is a bad set up at the customers end, but if your client or yourself can not send to certain customers (no matter how misconfigured they are, and it being their fault) has a knock on to the business
So please be aware of that if you use -all which is obviously best. Not sure what ?all would do in this case...
so my setting for your SPF would be
v=spf1 +ip4:1.2.3.4 +a:mail.mydomain.com +a:remote.mydomain.com +ip4:x.x.x.x(webserver IP) +a:www.mydomain.com -all
Hope this helps and gives you some trouble shooting ideas in advance

After adding SPF records for Hybrid Development some external mails bounced back with error SPF Unauthorized mail is prohibited.

Added v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all and the txt token for the Exchange 2013 hybrid configuration, now some mails bounced back with the error "SPF Unauthorized mail is prohibited". What could be the cause? Should I customized
the SPF record but it is not mentioned in the procedures for Hybrid configuration to do that.

Hi,
Would you like to mark Ed's reply as an answer so that others can find the solution easily.
Have a nice day : )
Thanks
Mavis
Mavis Huang
TechNet Community Support

DNS spf record for Microsoft

The spf record for Microsoft has a “ ~ALL “. What does this do and how do we make use of the same for our domain names?
NSLOOKUP Output for Microsoft.com:
> server 4.2.2.1
Default Server: vnsc-pri.sys.gtei.net
Address: 4.2.2.1
> set type=ANY
> microsoft.com
Server: vnsc-pri.sys.gtei.net
Address: 4.2.2.1
Non-authoritative answer:
microsoft.com   text =
        "v=spf1 mx include:_spf-a.microsoft.com include:_spf-b.microsoft.com inc
lude:_spf-c.microsoft.com include:_spf-ssg-a.microsoft.com ~all"
microsoft.com
        primary name server = dns.cp.msft.net
        responsible mail addr = msnhst.microsoft.com
        serial = 2007053102
        refresh = 300 (5 mins)
        retry   = 600 (10 mins)
        expire = 2419200 (28 days)
        default TTL = 3600 (1 hour)
microsoft.com   MX preference = 10, mail exchanger = maila.microsoft.com
microsoft.com   MX preference = 10, mail exchanger = mailb.microsoft.com
microsoft.com   MX preference = 10, mail exchanger = mailc.microsoft.com
microsoft.com   internet address = 207.46.232.182
microsoft.com   internet address = 207.46.197.32
microsoft.com   nameserver = ns4.msft.net
microsoft.com   nameserver = ns5.msft.net
microsoft.com   nameserver = ns1.msft.net
microsoft.com   nameserver = ns2.msft.net
microsoft.com   nameserver = ns3.msft.net
==
Thanks,

Mechanisms are prefixed with qualifiers:
"+" Pass
"-" Fail
"~" SoftFail
"?" Neutral
Mechanisms are evaluated in order and when no matche, the default will be "Neutral".
If there is no SPF for a domain, the result is "None". If a domain has a temp error during DNS processing, you get the result "TempError" (called "error" in earlier drafts). If some kind of syntax or evaluation error occurs (eg. the domain specifies an unrecognized
mechanism) the result is "PermError" (formerly "unknown").
Evaluation of an SPF record can return any of these results:
Pass -The SPF record designates the host to be allowed to send accept
Fail -The SPF record has designated the host as NOT being allowed to send reject
SoftFail - The SPF record has designated the host as NOT being allowed to send but is in transition accept but mark
Neutral - The SPF record specifies explicitly that nothing can be said about validity accept
None - The domain does not have an SPF record or the SPF record does not evaluate to a result accept
PermError - A permanent error has occured (eg. badly formatted SPF record) unspecified
TempError - A transient error has occured accept or reject
Marcus @ www.wormy.com

SPF record confusion

I've read through a number of forum posts here and elsewhere and still find this a confusing thing to setup. I believe it is partly because of the way terminology is being used.
We host our own email on Exchange 2010 servers and have a number of email domains.
domaina.com
domainb.com
domainc.com
domaind.com
The mx records for all the above domains look like: mail.domaina.com IPADDRESS (same for domain b, domain c, etc).
We use an external email filtering service. As a result, our MX records list the filtering service addresses as the highest priority, with our own mail host listed last: mail.ourdomain.com
We only send mail from our own email servers. We do not relay any of our email to another server for delivery to the internet. We do not use the email filtering service for any outbound email.
I only want to include the three servers of ours that deliver mail to the internet in our SPF record.
In the past, when I have done a telnet session to test SMTP from another server inside our network to one of the outbound servers, our server might respond with a different hostname in the HELO/EHLO (one of the four different mail.domaina.com, mail.domainb.com,
mail.domainc.com or mail.domaind.com hostnames). For the example, I will say that mail.domaina.com is our primary mail domain which also matches the subject name on our SSL certificates.
Using a number of different SPF record generating tools, I come up with different SPF records and reading the SPF record creation guidelines, I don't find it any more clear.
Some of the tools even suggest that the email server names be included in the SPF record. Here is what was suggested, more or less, by the SPF record generating tools:
"v=spf1 mx a a:hubtransportserver1.domaina.com a:hubtransportserver2.domaina.com a:hubtransportserver3.domaina.com ip4:xxx.xxx.xxx.202/31 ~all"
I used a CIDR calculator to convert the three public IP addresses used by our outbound email servers to generate the CIDR range.
With the information above, can anyone offer guidance on what the proper SPF record format is? The Microsoft SPF tool is still broken - you can't add more than one mx record domain, no matter how you enter them in the box. It will work if you only
enter one mx record domain.
Any help is appreciated!

it should have the IP addresses or the domain name of all the server which is authorized to receive the email for your domain
Example:
"v=spf1 ip4:192.168.0.1/16 -all"
example.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 include:example.net -all"
; AND
example1.com. IN SPF "v=spf1 include:example1.net -all"

SPF Record?

Does anyone know about this? If so is this separate from the MX record? IS it really needed? Opinions please...

The SPF record and the MX record are two different things.
You can get some background concerning SPF records at:
http://www.openspf.org/Introduction
It is a good idea to publish a SPF record; however, (in my opinion) I would set the SPF record so that it will SoftFail ("~all").
Whether to have SpamAssassin evaluate SPF records (by installing the SPF perl module, see the instructions here: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3813471 ) as a method to filter spam is another issue. Pterobyte did a stellar job of evaluating whether or not to do so. You can read his posts concerning this issue here (his conclusion, and I agree, is not to bother):
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3800656
This matter is "kind" of like one of those liberal vs. conservative political issues that many folks have an opinion about, but I'll try and give you my experience with this. Back in January I set SpamAssassin to evaluate SPF records for the purpose of filtering for spam. I eventually removed the filtering for the reasons Pterobyte outlined and the reasons below:
(1) Most Domains SoftFail.
From what I can tell most domains that I was seeing coming through either had no SPF record or had a record that ended in ~a (SoftFail). Given this fact, SpamAssassin wasn't able to make heads-or-tails of most SPF records for spam filtering purposes.
As a side note, SPF seemed hard to implement when a company had several mobile users. So, I got the impression that many companies would just set their SPF to softfail for that reason.
(2) Spammers Can Publish an SPF Record
A spammer can post an SPF record, so SpamAssassin doesn't give a SPF_Pass much weight.
(3) The Rare Exception
The only time I could really see that SPF record evaluation was going to make a solid impact was with domains that had SPF records ending in -a, and the only time that it was going to make a difference was when a spammer was spoofing a domain with a record ending in -a.
I only did this for a few days mind you ... but I just wasn't seeing any spam that met that condition that wouldn't have been caught anyway.
I felt like the load on my server's resources was a bit much given the limited impact the checks were having.

SPF record in DNS

The BC migration instructions here http://adobebcmigration.com/instructions say to add "v=spf1 mx include:worldsecuresystems.com ~all"
My existing SPF record as an Office 365 customer was:
"v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all"
I have changed it to:
"v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.com include:worldsecuresystems.com -all" (note without MX)
What is the MX for in your instructions? Is it required? I don't want to break the Microsoft SPF record by adding it.
Also, I believe the ~ (tilde) is wrong and should be a hyphen?

I'm eager to know this too... anyone have an answer? I hope this thread doesn't get lost in the fray.

SPF Record edit to remove worldsecuresystems as an mx:?

How can I remove "mx: include:worldsecuresystems.com" from my SPF Record? I use GMail as my provider, and whether I edit the record or delete it and create a new one, "mx: include:worldsecuresystems.com" gets placed back into the text.
Anybody know why this might be?
WorldSecureSystems is the nameserver, not a mail exchange.
Thanks in advance!
Scott

You're right, it is probably my misunderstanding of the SPF Record at fault here.................... Coupla points, if I could ask for further advice,
(1) BC sends no mail for me. I use it only for web admin. Is it still gonna want to auto-populate its MX: entry into the SPF record?
(2) I'm getting the following error from a kitterman.com spf validation test.........
Input accepted, querying now...
evaluating v=spf1 mx include:worldsecuresystems.com a:google.com mx:ASPMX.L.google.com mx:googlehosted.com mx:zoho.com include:zcsend.net include:spf.ihance.net include:_spf.google.com ~all ...
Results - record processed without error.
The result of the test (this should be the default result of your record) was, ambiguous . The explanation returned was, SPF Ambiguity Warning: No MX records found for mx mechanism: www.greaterintell.com.
Additionally, my email Campaign software cannot verify the SPF portion of an Email Authorization validation. Trying to get things the way they should be................
Bottom line problem is that my penetration rating on email campaigns is not where I would expect it to be, I'm only at about 10%. I must be getting recognized as spam to some degree, some where.........
Appreciate any thoughts you might have.

SPF Record (How Do I Add?)

Has anyone added a SPF record to cut down on spammers sending mail that looks like it came from your domain? What's your experience been since? I would like some assistance on getting this done on my Mac 10.4 Server.
Thanks in advance!
Powermac G5 Dual 2.5 Mac OS X (10.4)

http://www.openspf.org/ has wizard that builds a SPF
record based on answers to simply questions about
your network. You can use it as a starting point.
Camelot is correct, the best place to get information about SPF is at the openspf.org web site or the newer new.openspf.org site. Make sure you read all the information because publishing SPF records can have an impact on how your users send email. Be especially aware of the impact if you use email forwarding. Email forwarding breaks SPF!
You should also join the SPF Help mailing list if you have any further questions that are not answered at the SPF web site. I read all the postings to that list and myself and others will be more than happy to answer any further questions you have.
As for how effective it is - hard to say because no
one ever lets you know when they block mail due to
SPF restrictions.
Actually, if you fail an SPF check you are sent a bounce email that includes a link to the SPF web site explaining why the email bounced. Here is a sample of a link for an email that my server bounced.
Please see http://www.openspf.org/why.html?sender=ceo%401000planets.com&ip=85.2.114.191&rec eiver=server.pixelpointstudios.lan, header_comment=server.pixelpointstudios.lan: domain of [email protected] does not designate 85.2.114.191 as permitted sender
However, for the trivial amount of work it is to
implement it's worth doing. There's an element of
chicken-and-egg in the whole process - people won't
start adding SPF records until mail servers start
checking them, but mail servers won't check them
until they're being added to the DNS.
Well, there are two parts to SPF. There is the publishing of SPF records to protect your own domains and there is the checking of SPF records to validate the email that is sent to you.
By merely publishing SPF records you are already doing quite a bit. On top of the fact that your are protecting your own domains from fraudulent use, you are also helping stem the flow of forged email for those who are evaluating SPF records on the receiving end.
If you are running Mac OS X Server 10.4.x, the included SpamAssassin install will evaluate SPF records and use the results in its scoring if you install the SPF Perl modules.
If you want to go further than that you can install the Mail::SPF::Query Perl module and a Postfix policy plug-in and block SPF failures at your MTA.
Anything you can do to help stem the flow, as well as
protect your corporate identity has to be a good
thing.
Can't argue with you there!

SPF record and blackberry

Dear all,
We have SPF record for our outgoing mail server. The problem is when a user sends test mail from blackberry handset to his own company id, mails are going to Junk folder.
I checked the Internet message header in owa. it is showing following message.
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-Antispam-Report: DV:3.3.5705.600;SID:SenderIDStatus SoftFail;OrigIP:178.239.85.10
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: 6
smtp05.bis7.eu.blackberry.com (178.239.85.10)
do I need to add something to our spf record?
Please help
Anish

Hi Anish,
According to the error message, it seems the IP is outside the IP range that is defined in the SPF record. It is soft fail, your Exchange server accept the message and mark it as a Junk email.
You can try to add the 178.239.85.10 ip into the SPF record for testing.
I suggest use http://mxtoolbox.com/blacklists.aspx to check whether the 178.239.85.10 ip in the blacklist and whether the ip is security.
Disclaimer:
Microsoft is providing this information as a convenience to you. The sites are not controlled by Microsoft. Microsoft cannot make any representations regarding the quality, safety, or suitability of any software or information found there. Please make sure
that you completely understand the risk before retrieving any suggestions from the above link.
Thanks
Mavis
Mavis Huang
TechNet Community Support

Record all the data acquired by DAQ

Hi all,
I have a problem when I tried to record all the data acquired by the DAQ card. My DAQ is NI 6259, and the Labview version is 2009.
Basically, what I need do is using multiple channels to get the voltages of different point, then I subtract values of two channel (V+ and V-) to get voltage value between two points. In my vi, the sampling mode is continuous and the rate is 100 KHz, DAQmx reading is inside a while loop, and the numbers of samples per channel is set to be 100. After each loop execution I would get 100 data. I just used the format into file to write the data into a .txt file. It seems after 1 loop only the last one data is recorded instead of 100. Previously I averaged the 100 data inside the acquisition loop to get one data, so the writing function is OK but it really slows down the program. So I want to write all the raw data to txt file so later I can process them in Matlab. Is there any way to achieve this? Thank you very much.
The attached is the my vi for 2 channels voltage measurement and the current source control sub vi. I am new to Labview so the question really bothers me even after I read some similar topics in the forum.
Regards,
Hongxiang
Solved!
Go to Solution.
Attachments:
Dual Channel Voltage Measurement.vi ‏33 KB
Current Source 1.vi ‏49 KB

Thank you for you reply. I tried that, it actually record more data per pulse than before, but less pulses were recorded (there should be 8 pulses in 20 seconds time but only 2 were recorded), I think it was because the for loop inside slows down the program execution, and sometimes the error 200279 occurred. I think it would be better to separate the reading and recording process. Someone suggests me rather than writing to the file inside the loop, accumulate the data from all of the loop iterations to generate one large array containing all of the samples then pass that to Format Into File outside the loop. Do you know how to achieve that? I tried the as below, it seems totally wrong , only two data was written.
(The subvi nameed 1 (see attachment) converts the 2D array to 1D ) Thanks.
Attachments:
2D_Data_Reader.vi ‏9 KB

Need a convenient method to record ALL sound in- and output

Here's what I'm going to do: I'm working for a small music magazine and I'm going to be responsible for some of the interviews from now on. As they are often done by telephone I'm planning to use Skype, as it's a cheap method to call to foreign countries.
Now I need a simple and convenient method to record these calls for later review. I tried using 'arecord', but it takes sound from the capturing device set in 'alsamixer', which is either the microphone or the mixer (general sound output). However it has to be the microphone, otherwise I cannot talk in Skype.
So, 'arecord' is going to record the device which is set to capture, which is the microphone, so, I'm only getting my voice recorded, but not that of the interviewee.
It would be ok to have something that just records all audio output (independently of what's set in alsamixer) as I usually redirect the microphone to the output as well as I wouldn't hear me that well with the headset on. Commandline-tools would be prefered.

Hi,
Do you mean that you want all 7 dates together on 1 row?
Here's one way:
SELECT LISTAGG ( TO_CHAR ( SYSDATE + 1 - LEVEL
                          , 'DD-Mon-YYYY'
                ) WITHIN GROUP (ORDER BY LEVEL)    AS txt
FROM    dual
CONNECT BY LEVEL <= 7
This is an example of String Aggregation, that is, taking a column on multiple rows, and concatenating all the values (however many htere happen to be) into 1 big string column 1 row.
Like everything else, exactly how to do it depends on your Oracle version.
For more on String Aggregation, including differetn techniques for different versions, see http://www.oracle-base.com/articles/10g/StringAggregationTechniques.php
Message was edited by: FrankKulash
Sorry, I mis-read the question.

SPF records: ~all flag

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for