Just curious on if any of you are signing up for this service?
http://spf.pobox.com/
Just curious on if any of you are signing up for this service?
http://spf.pobox.com/
---start of one man's opinion... quick! hit delete if you are
easily offended :)
No. Not until the big guys start using it. I don't mean when they add the
records to their own domains, but
I just encountered an issue with the main.cf file as provided by Len for the
basic Imgate configuration and hope someone can clarify the situation for
me. The issue came up when I needed to whitelist an email recipient address
for a few of our users to the configuration and came across what looks
From: Richard Edge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just encountered an issue with the main.cf file as provided by Len for the
basic Imgate configuration and hope someone can clarify the situation for
SNIP
Is the /etc/postfix/to_recipients_bw.map the correct place to add email
addresses for our users who
Also, there's nothing to sign up for. You can use SPF whether you
register with spf.pobox.com or not. It is just DNS records.=20
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob McGregor
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 4:30 PM
To: IMGate List
Just curious on if any of you are signing up for this service?
http://spf.pobox.com/
I follow the SPF list, here's msg of frustration from recently:
I want an RfC for
v=spf1 a.s.a.p. All these permanent modifications like adding
zone-cut, removing zone-cut, use PRA instead of MAIL FROM,
don't
-Original Message-
no, because we are in the smtpd_recipient_restrictions already
Okay, got it.
yes, see
man 5 access
Hadn't checked there. I was using the book instead.
look in the log file to see why exactly. if the rejects are for header or
body checks due to kr character set,
So, is SPF a whitelist feature? a blacklist feature?
Since most of us have solved 98+% of our SPAM probles, SPF will at very
best be tiny increment of help, and we are a long way from very best SPF
implementation.
Len
I see SPF records adding a low weight in the entire anti-spam system,
Personally I'd like to see
Marking Mail Transfer Agents in Reverse DNS with TXT RRs
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark-03.txt
move forward and get adopted.
Sounds good to me, but so did SPF in the beginning. :)
mtamark has, for me, the same problem as
Quoting Len Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Personally I'd like to see
Marking Mail Transfer Agents in Reverse DNS with TXT RRs
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark-03.txt
move forward and get adopted.
Perhaps I misunderstood this RFC but it seems trivial
10 matches
Mail list logo
