Having a cover-all SPF record doesnot mean the domain is spamming.
You missed this:
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/current/0126.html
D.
On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 23:39 -0700, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
Very aware spammers can create their own domains and and SPF records. They
can do essentially the same thing with any anti spam measures. And I have
see a number of them do just that, an SPF record of entire IPv4 address
junkyardma...@verizon.net a écrit :
Yahoo has ulterior motives? They wish to push their domain keys.
Others probably likewise have ulterior motives.
Do you also oppose SPF, and if so what is your motives?
I will repeat myself: this is not the place to discuss SPF. SPF has been
debated to
didn't see Wietse message before sending. so please ignore my previous
post. (sigh, there is no get my post back in email :).
mouss a écrit :
junkyardma...@verizon.net a écrit :
Yahoo has ulterior motives? They wish to push their domain keys.
Others probably likewise have ulterior motives.
.
--
From: Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 10:58 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Postfix.org SPF
junkyardma...@verizon.net put forth on 7/4/2010 9:53 PM:
What is stupid is to be so opposed to anti spam tools that have no
significant downside
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 11:31:03PM -0700, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
What is your objection?
For the love of $deity *STOP* top-posting. Thank you.
You wanted an objection? There it is.
John
--
Thinking
...@gerdesas.com
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 11:43 PM
To: junkyardma...@verizon.net
Cc: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: [Postfix-Users] Re: Postfix.org SPF
Those who wish to make use of it can do so.
From: Jeroen Geilman
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 11:46 AM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Postfix.org SPF
On 07/03/2010 08:45 PM, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
How about publishing an SPF record for postfix.org.
This would
: Re: Postfix.org SPF
On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 11:45:39 -0700, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
How about publishing an SPF record for postfix.org.
Why?
--
Sahil Tandon sa...@freebsd.org
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Postfix.org SPF
On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 11:45:39 -0700, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
How about publishing an SPF record for postfix.org.
Why?
--
Sahil Tandon sa...@freebsd.org
03, 2010 11:53 AM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Postfix.org SPF
On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 11:45:39 -0700, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
How about publishing an SPF record for postfix.org.
Why?
--
Sahil Tandon sa...@freebsd.org
Rejecting email souly on the fact that a domain
: Re: Postfix.org SPF
On 07/04/2010 10:20 PM, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
Some do not accept email from domains whose owner does not publish the
servers they authorize to transfer mail for their domain.
--
From: Sahil Tandon sa...@freebsd.org
04, 2010 7:29 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Postfix.org SPF
On 07/04/2010 10:20 PM, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
Some do not accept email from domains whose owner does not publish the
servers they authorize to transfer mail for their domain
On Sunday, July 04, 2010 10:51:32 pm junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
Yahoo has ulterior motives? They wish to push their domain keys.
Others probably likewise have ulterior motives.
Do you also oppose SPF, and if so what is your motives?
Please stop. This is offtopic for this list and
email for them.
And doing so cuts into spam significantly.
--
From: junkyardma...@verizon.net
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 7:51 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Postfix.org SPF
Yahoo has ulterior motives? They wish to push
On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 21:08:58 -0700, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
[blah blah blah]
It is simply becoming unnecessary to accept email from domains which
do not publish an SPF record to let receiving domains know the systems
that are authorized to transfer email for them. And doing so
Tandon sa...@freebsd.org
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 9:12 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Postfix.org SPF
On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 21:08:58 -0700, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
[blah blah blah]
It is simply becoming unnecessary to accept email from domains which
do not publish
Anyone opposed to the postfix.org domain publishing an SPF record?
Yes. Now, can you go away, please?
R's,
John, MAAWG senior technical advisor, among other things
junkyardma...@verizon.net put forth on 7/4/2010 9:53 PM:
What is stupid is to be so opposed to anti spam tools that have no
significant downside.
The problem is it has no significant upside either, which is why most sites
don't use it as an anti spam measure. Since spammers can simply create
How about publishing an SPF record for postfix.org.
This would work well:
v=spf1 mx include:cloud9.net ~all
http://openspf.org/
http://old.openspf.org/wizard.html?mydomain=Postfix.org
On 07/03/2010 08:45 PM, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
How about publishing an SPF record for postfix.org.
This would work well:
v=spf1 mx include:cloud9.net ~all
http://openspf.org/
http://old.openspf.org/wizard.html?mydomain=Postfix.org
Um.. and then what ?
On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 11:45:39 -0700, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
How about publishing an SPF record for postfix.org.
Why?
--
Sahil Tandon sa...@freebsd.org
22 matches
Mail list logo
