Re: [qmailtoaster] SPF rejecting test mode

2007-04-19 Thread PakOgah
it too! George S - Original Message - From: Tim Mancour [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 4:24 PM Subject: RE: [qmailtoaster] SPF rejecting test mode Eric, I had to back off to a value of 3 for the same reason. Since I've observed

RE: [qmailtoaster] SPF rejecting test mode

2007-04-19 Thread Tim Mancour
Absolutely. -Original Message- From: PakOgah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 12:08 PM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: Re: [qmailtoaster] SPF rejecting test mode Hi Tim, can we also create additional rule for SA if spf status = pass

Re: [qmailtoaster] SPF rejecting test mode

2007-04-12 Thread George Sweetnam
That's a very good idea Tim I'm going to do it too! George S - Original Message - From: Tim Mancour [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 4:24 PM Subject: RE: [qmailtoaster] SPF rejecting test mode Eric, I had to back off to a value of 3

Re: [qmailtoaster] SPF rejecting test mode

2007-04-09 Thread Jake Vickers
Eric Shubes wrote: It came to my attention today that my toaster is rejecting messages based on SPF policy even though the sender's SPF policy indicates that the domain is testing: http://www.openspf.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]ip=63.109.97.44receiver=doris I have /var/qmail/control/spfbehavior set

RE: [qmailtoaster] SPF rejecting test mode

2007-04-09 Thread Tim Mancour
- From: Jake Vickers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 4:53 PM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: Re: [qmailtoaster] SPF rejecting test mode Eric Shubes wrote: It came to my attention today that my toaster is rejecting messages based on SPF policy even though

Re: [qmailtoaster] SPF rejecting test mode

2007-04-09 Thread Erik A. Espinoza
If you set spfbehavior to 4, which will reject softfail, then spf records that set softfail will be rejected. By default, spfbehavior 3, will only reject things that set explicit fail. Thanks, Erik On 4/9/07, Jake Vickers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eric Shubes wrote: It came to my attention