https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7360
--- Comment #6 from AXB ---
(In reply to Benny Pedersen from comment #5)
> maybe Sender-ID is much much better then SPF?
>
> ironical microsoft does not use it anymore :-)
>
> (use dkim would be solution)
>
> or
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7360
--- Comment #5 from Benny Pedersen ---
maybe Sender-ID is much much better then SPF?
ironical microsoft does not use it anymore :-)
(use dkim would be solution)
or maybe time to make dmarc testing in SpamAssassin ?
--
You
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7360
--- Comment #4 from AXB ---
Please take further comments to the SA users list.
Bugzilla is not the right place do discuss this.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7360
--- Comment #3 from AXB ---
(In reply to Petr Bena from comment #2)
> Do you realize that this renders SPF check absolutely useless? Every script
> kiddie can bypass it as it's implemented in SA right now.
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7360
Petr Bena changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||petr@bena.rocks
---
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7360
AXB changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED