On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 03:59:10AM +0200, Martin Braun wrote:
IMHO spam should be dealt with only on the client, not on the server.
It is not the task of the server to determine what is spam and what is
not. I know everyone does it, I used to do it too, but it is wrong.
Server filtering saves
IMHO spam should be dealt with only on the client, not on the server.
It is not the task of the server to determine what is spam and what is
not. I know everyone does it, I used to do it too, but it is wrong.
2014-04-26 16:26 GMT+02:00 Stéphane Guedon steph...@22decembre.eu:
Le samedi 26 avril
On 2014-05-01 03:59, Martin Braun wrote:
IMHO spam should be dealt with only on the client, not on the server.
It is not the task of the server to determine what is spam and what is
not. I know everyone does it, I used to do it too, but it is wrong.
What if I have multiple clients? Eg:
In theroy that idea isnt even that great, and in practice a hygene server
is a better place to do the most course obvious spam. There is stuff that
is very obviously not wanted such as items coming from rouge servers that
we can prove thanks to SPF or Sender-ID being setup correctly. There is no
I agree, it's not simple, but none the less it is true.
However I wouldn't waste time on reading or answering mail on my
phone. If you receive really important email, and you need to answer
such on the phone, you need to use a unique email just for such
clients - making sure no spam reaches you
forgot the list sorry,
you can very easily tell what should or should not be flagged for review
with the most granular rules, anything with virus attachments should NEVER
get to the user, period, ever. Id rather have 100 false positives for
viruses than my network get turned into a zombie because
you can very easily tell what should or should not be flagged for review
with the most granular rules, anything with virus attachments should NEVER
get to the user, period, ever. Id rather have 100 false positives for
viruses than my network get turned into a zombie because I threw my users to
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 06:55:48 -0700, you wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Ashish SHUKLA ashish...@lostca.se wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 08:26:59 +0200, Martin Braun yellowgoldm...@gmail.com
said:
Hi
I was thinking about adding DKIM and SPF to my OpenSMTPD setup as I
have
On 2014-04-26 Sat 14:04 PM |, John Cox wrote:
Unfortunately the whole point of SPF (unlike Sender-ID which works
much better and on much the same principles) is that you can reject
the message before receiving it
That's the idea, but it is often abused by dumb hostmasters (e.g:
google)
Hi John,
At 06:04 26-04-2014, John Cox wrote:
Unfortunately the whole point of SPF (unlike Sender-ID which works
much better and on much the same principles) is that you can reject
the message before receiving it so you wouldn't have the DKIM stuff
(which I think requires you to have the entire
Le samedi 26 avril 2014 07:20:19, vous avez écrit :
Hi John,
At 06:04 26-04-2014, John Cox wrote:
Unfortunately the whole point of SPF (unlike Sender-ID which works
much better and on much the same principles) is that you can reject
the message before receiving it so you wouldn't have the
Le samedi 26 avril 2014 07:51:42, vous avez écrit :
you want to use SPF at the very least, but then back it
with spampd or amavisd and run it though spamassassin
that is pretty much a standard stack right there,
I tried to set it up yesterday.
Complete failed !
I would really like to have
there isnt a single one, but you have to do it somthing similar to what
gilles did for dkim dkim.
so you chose somthing like in my case I use amavisd since I never got
spampd to work reliably listening on port 2000
listen on lo port 2001 tag clean
accept tagged clean for deliver to mbox
accept
Hi
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 08:26:59 +0200, Martin Braun yellowgoldm...@gmail.com
said:
Hi
I was thinking about adding DKIM and SPF to my OpenSMTPD setup as I
have previously run with those, but I am in doubt.
I am thinking about the worth of those technologies?
I used to think SPF was a good
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Ashish SHUKLA ashish...@lostca.se wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 08:26:59 +0200, Martin Braun yellowgoldm...@gmail.com
said:
Hi
I was thinking about adding DKIM and SPF to my OpenSMTPD setup as I
have previously run with those, but I am in doubt.
I am
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 08:26:59 +0200, Martin Braun yellowgoldm...@gmail.com
said:
Hi
I was thinking about adding DKIM and SPF to my OpenSMTPD setup as I
have previously run with those, but I am in doubt.
I am thinking about the worth of those technologies?
I used to think SPF was a good
Hi Martin,
On 19 Apr 2014 08:26, Martin Braun wrote:
And I don't know if DKIM signing is really necessary.
From my experience, most reputable mail sources already use DKIM and
SPF. By implementing these into your setup, your mail will gain some extra
points so as to get past spam filters in
On 2014-04-19 Sat 08:26 AM |, Martin Braun wrote:
I was thinking about adding DKIM and SPF to my OpenSMTPD setup as I
have previously run with those, but I am in doubt.
I am thinking about the worth of those technologies?
OK for sending, waste of time for receiving validation.
SPF is
Le samedi 19 avril 2014, 11:29:52 Craig R. Skinner a écrit :
On 2014-04-19 Sat 08:26 AM |, Martin Braun wrote:
I was thinking about adding DKIM and SPF to my OpenSMTPD setup as
I
have previously run with those, but I am in doubt.
I am thinking about the worth of those technologies?
19 matches
Mail list logo
