On 13/04/2024 19:27, Marc wrote:
All nice and well, but a bit decades to late. There should never have
been such default whitelist. Companies should take care not be on
blacklists, and should maintain some
Absolutely, no arguments there!
After all spf -all exists already for a long time. So
Bill Cole skrev den 2024-04-13 19:42:
score USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL -2
score USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL -2
By default those each score -7.5 so a doubly-confirmed message gets the
same insane -15 as a legacy listing (def_whitelist_from_rcvd) that
doesn't require authentication. No such listings still
On 2024-04-12 at 19:26:59 UTC-0400 (Fri, 12 Apr 2024 16:26:59 -0700)
jdow
is rumored to have said:
> On 20240412 16:14:44, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> jdow writes:
>>
>>> One pesky detail still exists. There is a very broad fuzzy area where
>>> my spam is your ham and vice versa. You could probably
On 2024-04-12 at 19:01:21 UTC-0400 (Fri, 12 Apr 2024 19:01:21 -0400)
Greg Troxel
is rumored to have said:
> Also, I'm not sure you said this, but I would say:
>
>default whitelist is dkim only
No. Existing practice is that we trust both DKIM and SPF, and I think that's
fine.
There are no
On 2024-04-12 at 18:56:15 UTC-0400 (Fri, 12 Apr 2024 18:56:15 -0400)
Greg Troxel
is rumored to have said:
> I see it very slightly differently, but mostly agree
>
> Bill Cole writes:
>
>> 1. We serve our users: receivers, not senders. Senders claiming FPs
>> need the support of a corroborating
Thanks Bill, I will give this a look !
Pierluigi
Il giorno ven 12 apr 2024 alle ore 23:00 Bill Cole <
sausers-20150...@billmail.scconsult.com> ha scritto:
> On 2024-04-12 at 02:14:59 UTC-0400 (Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:14:59 +0200)
> Pierluigi Frullani
> is rumored to have said:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
All nice and well, but a bit decades to late. There should never have been such
default whitelist. Companies should take care not be on blacklists, and should
maintain some degree of standard implementation to send out email. After all
spf -all exists already for a long time. So why are
