What would be a safe condition to use SPF, without being too stringent? On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:20 PM, Todd Lyons <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Raymond Norton <[email protected]> wrote: >> The comments were my feeble attempt to fix things. How should it read, >> where spf is still used, but not constrictive? > > Let's go over the lines: > > deny message = SPF_MSG > spf = = fail > > It means "deny the email with the message SPF_MSG, *IF* the spf fails". > > Compare that to what you have: > > deny message = SPF_MSG > #spf = = fail > > It means "deny the email with the message SPF_MSG" (implied "no matter > what", aka "for every message I see"). > > Adjust it by commenting it all out: > > #deny message = SPF_MSG > # spf = = fail > > ...Todd > -- > The total budget at all receivers for solving senders' problems is $0. > If you want them to accept your mail and manage it the way you want, > send it the way the spec says to. --John Levine > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
