Looking at the last 8 days, I see about 1.5% of minor (or larger) spf pra's
we've evaluated had an error (pra's with errors / pra's with a pass), which
includes DNS errors, bogus mechanisms, timeouts, etc. That does rise to 7%
if you include all senders, but those are some pretty small fry.
I mak
On 16/05/17 22:12, D'Arcy Cain wrote:
On 2017-05-16 03:35 PM, Laura Atkins wrote:
Because in large, international corporations there are processes.
I worked with a bank a few years ago looking at authentication. It took
an inconceivable amount of time just to identify which country IT group
h
On 2017-05-16 03:35 PM, Laura Atkins wrote:
Because in large, international corporations there are processes.
I worked with a bank a few years ago looking at authentication. It took
an inconceivable amount of time just to identify which country IT group
held the authoritative records for rDNS an
> On May 16, 2017, at 12:26 PM, Michael Peddemors
> wrote:
>
> On 17-05-16 12:14 PM, Andreas Schamanek wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 May 2017, at 13:05, Vick Khera wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 12:11 PM, D'Arcy Cain wrote:
>>>
Heck, we may not even need to do it. Enough coverage and the
On 17-05-16 12:14 PM, Andreas Schamanek wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2017, at 13:05, Vick Khera wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 12:11 PM, D'Arcy Cain wrote:
Heck, we may not even need to do it. Enough coverage and the threat may
get a bunch of them fixed anyway.
hahahaha. you are very optimistic.
On Tue, 16 May 2017, at 13:05, Vick Khera wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 12:11 PM, D'Arcy Cain wrote:
>
> > Heck, we may not even need to do it. Enough coverage and the threat may
> > get a bunch of them fixed anyway.
>
> hahahaha. you are very optimistic.
Maybe, but I still love the idea o
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 12:11 PM, D'Arcy Cain wrote:
> Heck, we may not even need to do it. Enough coverage and the threat may
> get a bunch of them fixed anyway.
>
hahahaha. you are very optimistic.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://c
On 2017-05-16 09:42 AM, Vladimir Dubrovin via mailop wrote:
According to the standard, invlid SPF record results in spf=permerror,
not in spf=fail. It's up to you to reject the message in this case, but
it's definitely not what system administrator of the sending system told
you.
Maybe but the
