On Monday 14 March 2011 18:21:02 Norbert Bollow wrote:
IMO it's more reasonable to use only DKIM and encourage others
to do the same.
Well, even DKIM is not the magic solution either and it does not address the
same issues as SPF does - it just breaks for other things. SPF authenticates
Am Monday 14 March 2011 schrieb mir Benoit Panizzon:
We got two customers (one is another ISP) pretending that they have
observed, that Google, Sunrise and other Services have startet
flagging their customer's emails as spam, because the sender domain
has not SPF record. Not an 'non matching'
Hi Oli
A Customer just forwarded me this which is more or less a confirmation that
Google (and Sunrise who uses Google Mail Services) do penalize emails from
domains with no SPF:
http://www.google.com/support/a/bin/answer.py?hl=deanswer=33786
Wenn für Ihre Domain kein SPF-Datensatz vorhanden
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Benoit Panizzon wrote:
Hi Oli
A Customer just forwarded me this which is more or less a confirmation that
Google (and Sunrise who uses Google Mail Services) do penalize emails from
domains with no SPF:
http://www.google.com/support/a/bin/answer.py?hl=deanswer=33786
Wenn
Hello Benoit,
On 14. 03. 11 14:49, Benoit Panizzon wrote:
We got two customers (one is another ISP) pretending that they have observed,
that Google, Sunrise and other Services have startet flagging their
customer's emails as spam, because the sender domain has not SPF record. Not
an 'non
Rene Luria opera...@infomaniak.ch wrote:
As a conclusion, if you care enough for your customers, you _should_
publish accurate SPF records for their (your) domains, whether you use
SPF in your filtering techniques or not.
But doing so increases the likelihood of SPF being perceived as
widely
6 matches
Mail list logo
