Is anyone planning to implement CSA for SpamAssassin?
http://mipassoc.org/csv/
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dotat.at/
RATTRAY HEAD TO BERWICK ON TWEED: WEST 3 OR 4, INCREASING 5 TO 7. RAIN LATER.
GOOD OR MODERATE. SLIGHT TO MODERATE BECOMING MODERATE TO ROUGH.
Tony Finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is anyone planning to implement CSA for SpamAssassin?
http://mipassoc.org/csv/
I have not heard of any plans to implement Comma Separated Values.
Daniel
--
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tony Finch writes:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
Tony Finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is anyone planning to implement CSA for SpamAssassin?
http://mipassoc.org/csv/
I have not heard of any plans to implement Comma
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Justin Mason wrote:
Sadly I haven't been tracking CSA/CSV's list so I have no idea
what it is ;)
The sysadmin-level view is:
http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~fanf2/hermes/doc/antiforgery/csa.html
Sample implementation (for Exim, but not much dependent on context):
Tony Finch wrote:
Is anyone planning to implement CSA for SpamAssassin?
I'm not, but I do have a question about it. Is it something that would
best be implemented on the MTA to reject fake SMTP servers, or does it
have a maybe case which would be best handled by a SpamAssassin rule
without
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
I'm not, but I do have a question about it. Is it something that would
best be implemented on the MTA to reject fake SMTP servers, or does it
have a maybe case which would be best handled by a SpamAssassin rule
without outright rejecting the mail?
--On Friday, March 11, 2005 7:34 AM +1300 Sidney Markowitz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not, but I do have a question about it. Is it something that would
best be implemented on the MTA to reject fake SMTP servers, or does it
have a maybe case which would be best handled by a SpamAssassin rule
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Kenneth Porter wrote:
It looks to me like it's similar to SPF but addresses the hostname in the EHLO
message rather than the one in the MAIL FROM message. I'm still unclear how
the target field in the SRV record is used.
The reason it uses SRV records is a clever
