Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | tmcdos's commentslogin

Normally, a pragmatic engineer would answer this question with "The glass is twice big than needed"



Or just say that you do not know the answer - but have the capacity to find it.


After some investigation, it looks like only mailgun.org is declared in ValiMail but not mailgun.net, e.g. a DNS query for 198.244.56.66._ip.c66.c5341538.usw1.send.mailgun.net._ehlo.upwork.com._spf.vali.email returns "v=spf1 include:mailgun.org -all"


According to https://tools.sendmarc.com/spf-policy-test/upwork.com/198.24... v5142.v530814cf.use4.send.mailgun.net or c66.c5341538.usw1.send.mailgun.net are not allowed to send emails on behalf of upwork.com You can also check through https://spf.access.nu/ or https://dmarcian.com/spf-survey/ that IPs belonging to MailGun are not allowed to send emails for upwork.com


Those tools aren't using the macro which means they are not following the RFC, stop using crappy online tools and wasting people's time.

You can read about it here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7208#section-7

dig +short TXT "159.112.254.142._ip.v5142.v530814cf.use4.send.mailgun.net._ehlo.upwork.com._spf.vali.email"

"v=spf1 include:mailgun.org -all"

--

dig +short TXT mailgun.org

"v=spf1 include:_spf.mailgun.org include:_spf.eu.mailgun.org -all"

--

dig +short TXT _spf.mailgun.org

"v=spf1 include:_spf1.mailgun.org include:_spf2.mailgun.org ~all"

--

dig +short TXT _spf2.mailgun.org

"v=spf1 ip4:104.130.122.0/23 ip4:146.20.112.0/26 ip4:161.38.192.0/20 ip4:143.55.224.0/21 ip4:143.55.232.0/22 ip4:159.112.240.0/20 ip4:198.244.48.0/20 ip4:204.220.168.0/21 ip4:204.220.176.0/20 ~all"

And there's 159.112.240.0/20.

--

The SPF lookup limit is 10 which means that this way of doing it is totally valid.

And here's where you can read about the lookup limit: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7208#section-4.6.4


Got it. Thanks and apologies.


I never used the technique below - I went freelancing before I had the chance. If I am asked such a question, I would offer a "blind exchange" - I will write my absolute minimum that is barely acceptable (i.e. I won't be happy and probably will start looking for a better job soon after hiring) and fold the paper; they will write their absolute maximum that they are willing to afford if I was their most IDEAL candidate (i.e. they should be afraid of losing me) and fold the paper; then we will simultaneously exchange the papers to each other. The negotiation should become a lot more interesting after this exchange.


Too sad it does not work on Windows 7.


I have heard that in Netherlands there used to be (not sure if it is still there) a system where you have for example 4 rooms of children. Room A contains all children that are ahead of rooms B, C, D. If a child from room B learns pretty quickly - the child is moved to room A. However, if the child leaves behind the other children in room B - that child is moved in room C. Same for room C - those who can not catch up are moved to room D. In this way everyone is learning at max capacity. Those who can learn faster and better are not slowed down by others who can not (or do not want to) keep the pace. Everyone is happy - children, teachers, parents, community.


And what is wrong with competition? If someone else makes a product or service better than you - why should you get the benefits and not him/her? The correct solution is to freely share all knowledge (IP). Open source is not perfect but it is a step in the right direction. P2P and torrents is another step in the right direction.


Maybe that's one of the reasons they created the Bibble. Notice the word "created" and not "wrote".


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: