Hello all,
Related to SPF TXT records, I am confused about the results I receive from the kitterman.com website when running a syntactically correct error check. Here are the results:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Input accepted, querying now...
evaluating v=spf1 a mx include:smtproutes.com include:smtpout.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: DNS: Truncated UDP Reply, SPF records should fit in a UDP packet, retrying TCP
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My confusion is with the last part of the results, stating that the record is "ambiguous" and the UDP reply has been "truncated". To my best understanding, this is basically stating that the SPF record data contained within the UDP reply was too long to actually all 'fit' into a UDP reply, therefor the message being truncated, i.e. cutting off some of the data. This also explains why it then tries a TCP session. BUT from further researching, TCP may be blocked on a domain's firewall, etc...which will result in an SPF check failure.
The reason I bring this up is because there is a domain that is failing our SPF record even though it is perfectly legitimate (as shown above). I 'think' they are failing it due to the UDP replies being too large, and thus truncated. Has anyone ever experienced this before?
Thanks!