Today we realized that all of our emails being sent to email addresses of the type <username>@corporatedomain.com were getting rejected. I don't know who is hosting the email for corporatedomain.com. I don't think that should matter. Anyway, the error we were getting was

Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server for the recipient domain example.com by mail.example.com. [yyy.yyy.yyy.230].

The error that the other server returned was:
550 5.7.1 Command rejected
  • We have a Google Apps account for mydomain.com. The DNS for mydomain.com had the SPF record v=spf1 mx include:spf.mailjet.com -all.
  • We are using the Google Apps SMTP server to send transactional emails from with my app. We am using the mailjet account to send bulk marketing emails.
  • Since the mail for this domain is handled by Google Apps, the MX records all point to the default Google app ones.
  • My VPS has two public ip addresses. I don't have an SMTP server installed on my VPS. I send emails from within my VPS using the Google Apps SMTP server ONLY.
  • Only the emails sent via the Google App SMTP server were getting blocked. The Mailjet ones delivered fine.

Given the above usage pattern & VPS environment setup, I assumed the SPF would checkout properly (the MX records point to Google and I am using their SMTP servers to send email).

Googling the error really didn't lead to anything. Eventually I tried carpet bombing the issue by including whatever I could think of in the SPF. And now it works. Cool! The spf entry now reads

v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com include:spf.mailjet.com ip4:xxx.xxx.xxx.143 ip4:xxx.xxx.xxx.144 mx ~all

But I am not sure WHY it works. I really DONT want to do a trial & error to find the bare minimum settings that work for the recipients domain. There must be a spec for these things, right? After all, all emails were/are getting delivered to all users (not with emails belonging to corporatedomain.com).

I have a suspicion that in the current SPF entry, the ip4 mechanisms as well as the mx one are not needed. Google documentation recommends using include:_spf.google.com instead of mx. Also, this one ends with less restrictive ~all. The old SPF ended with the highly restrictive -all. Can someone confirm what the ideal SPF record should be for my use case?

Side note: I have now configured DKIM authentication for mydomain.com. I don't know if I need to setup Reverse Dns. I don't think I do, as I am not "sending" the email, the Google Apps SMTP server is. Please correct me if I am wrong.


The include:_spf.google.com you eventually added is likely the critical bit here. It flags Google's servers as being legitimate senders of mail on your behalf.

  • That's what even I think. But why didn't the MX mechanism work? The spec says it should allow all servers handling the domain's email. – Amith George Nov 5 '13 at 17:19
  • 1
    MX is for incoming mail. Google may well use different IPs for outgoing mail that aren't the same IPs as those MX records. As such, Google tells you to use their SPF record, which always includes their various e-mail sending netblocks correctly. – ceejayoz Nov 5 '13 at 17:21
  • If MX records are meant to be incoming only, then that would explain things a bit. How about the ~all at the end? Google recommends it. Doesn't that "reduce" the effectiveness of the SPF entry – Amith George Nov 5 '13 at 17:46
  • 2
    They recommend it instead of -all because they're catering to a user base that includes people who have no idea what SPF records do. By suggesting ~all they don't get complaints from people who wind up causing their mail sent from other servers to be rejected. If set up correctly, a -all record is much better. – ceejayoz Nov 5 '13 at 17:47
  • Just to clarify, if only using Gmail smtp, then I can use -all. There isn't a chance that the ip's returned by _spf.google.com might not contain the ip of the smtp server used. I got the impression that they dynamically create servers and associate ip's, so some might get left out for a very short duration. – Amith George Nov 5 '13 at 17:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.