I will be out of the office from 11/22/2010 through the
Thanksgiving Day weekend, and
returning on 11/29/2010.
If the matter is urgent, please contact one of the following people:
Timi Finley (tfin...@naknan.com)
Romani Perera (rper...@naknan.com)
Doug Finley (dfin...@naknan.com)
Thanks,
Michael Scheidell michael.scheid...@secnap.com writes:
On 11/15/10 11:43 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
As it stands now, the SPF spec permits so much waffling that it might as
well not be used.
Regards,
then don't use it:
I don't use SPF, thanks!
--
소여물 황병희(黃炳熙) | .. 출항 15분전..
Johnny, not
On 11/18/2010 9:55 AM, RW wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:00:48 +0100
Benny Pedersenm...@junc.org wrote:
On tor 18 nov 2010 12:59:38 CET, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote
On 16.11.10 07:48, Marc Perkel wrote:
Spammer can and do use SPF so it's not a good white list either.
If SPF is correct and
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 15:02:58 -0800
Marc Perkel supp...@junkemailfilter.com wrote:
On 11/18/2010 9:55 AM, RW wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:00:48 +0100
Benny Pedersenm...@junc.org wrote:
On tor 18 nov 2010 12:59:38 CET, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote
On 16.11.10 07:48, Marc Perkel
On søn 21 nov 2010 00:02:58 CET, Marc Perkel wrote
Spammers can and do set SPF records too.
spammers dont control YOUR whitelist, hard to understand :(
555 errors giving up
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
On 16.11.10 07:48, Marc Perkel wrote:
[...]
Spammer can and do use SPF so it's not a good white list either.
[...]
If SPF is correct and the domain is in my white list then I'll pass it
as white.
[...]
we call this shitting into one's own mouth.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk
On tor 18 nov 2010 12:59:38 CET, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote
On 16.11.10 07:48, Marc Perkel wrote:
Spammer can and do use SPF so it's not a good white list either.
If SPF is correct and the domain is in my white list then I'll pass it
as white.
we call this shitting into one's own mouth.
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:00:48 +0100
Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org wrote:
On tor 18 nov 2010 12:59:38 CET, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote
On 16.11.10 07:48, Marc Perkel wrote:
Spammer can and do use SPF so it's not a good white list either.
If SPF is correct and the domain is in my white list
On 11/15/2010 10:25 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 08:07:43 -1000
Alexandre Chapellonalexandre.chapel...@mana.pf wrote:
I use it just the same for the domains I have complete controm over.
Unfortunately, be aware that this setup maybe forbid your legitimate
emails to be
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010, Marc Perkel wrote:
Spammer can and do use SPF so it's not a good white list either.
That was never its intent.
If SPF is correct and the domain is in my white list then I'll pass it as
white.
_that_ is its intent.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
Le mardi 16 novembre 2010 à 07:48 -0800, Marc Perkel a écrit :
On 11/15/2010 10:25 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 08:07:43 -1000
Alexandre Chapellonalexandre.chapel...@mana.pf wrote:
I use it just the same for the domains I have complete controm over.
Unfortunately,
On tir 16 nov 2010 16:48:28 CET, Marc Perkel wrote
Other than that - it just plain doesn't work.
spammers can do what thay like, but add sender domain to spf whitelist
here is not there bussiness
do you belive its spammers rule the world ?
example of a invalid spf
On 11/14/10 9:41 AM, Marc Perkel supp...@junkemailfilter.com wrote:
On 11/11/2010 5:07 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 11/11/2010 7:41 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
Really? I don't use SPF in SA, only MTA, if that's the case, it is a
shame that SA also is behind the times. It was years ago SPF type
On 11/15/2010 10:22 AM, Daniel McDonald wrote:
I send from my phone just fine - Auth on the submission port to my
home servers, then SPF matches the policy just fine.
Dan,
You've made many good points. Not trying to take away from those.
However, in spite of what you said about forwarding
On 11/15/10 10:48 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
...I'm sure there are others I haven't thought about!
All addressed by the standards. Yes, we advise our clients that SPF
PUBLISHING and CHECKING are two different things, and for two different
reasons.
We tell them that if they use the '-all' tag,
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:30:59 -0500
Michael Scheidell michael.scheid...@secnap.com wrote:
So, SPF works, if EVERYONE FOLLOWS THE RFC'S AND BEST PRACTICES.
Not really. SPF is too weasely. If the SPF authors really wanted a
useful standard, then:
1) The only return codes would have been pass,
On 11/15/10 11:43 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
As it stands now, the SPF spec permits so much waffling that it might as
well not be used.
Regards,
then don't use it:
host -t txt roaringpenguin.com
roaringpenguin.com descriptive text v=spf1 a a:colo3.roaringpenguin.com
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:50:50 -0500
Michael Scheidell michael.scheid...@secnap.com wrote:
then don't use it:
Our record follows the way I said SPF should work. It specifies only
4 hosts as authorized to send for us and has a hard -all at the end.
That's because we took the time and trouble to
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Rob McEwen wrote:
But the user often wants to set a from address as being their regular
business e-mail address so that they then get replies to blackberry-sent
messages to BOTH their desktop computers and their blackberry.
(otherwise, they'd only get the reply on their
I use it just the same for the domains I have complete controm over.
Unfortunately, be aware that this setup maybe forbid your legitimate
emails to be forwarded by a foreign host:
let's say your authorized server sends email in your name to a remote
mailbox (let's say Yahoo!), which is setup to
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 08:07:43 -1000
Alexandre Chapellon alexandre.chapel...@mana.pf wrote:
I use it just the same for the domains I have complete controm over.
Unfortunately, be aware that this setup maybe forbid your legitimate
emails to be forwarded by a foreign host:
Yes, this is a
On 11/11/2010 5:07 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 11/11/2010 7:41 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
Really? I don't use SPF in SA, only MTA, if that's the case, it is a
shame that SA also is behind the times. It was years ago SPF type was
ratified. Justin: Any plans to change that?
I guess I'm one of those
On 11/11/2010 5:07 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 11/11/2010 7:41 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
Really? I don't use SPF in SA, only MTA, if that's the case, it is a
shame that SA also is behind the times. It was years ago SPF type was
ratified. Justin: Any plans to change that?
I guess I'm one of those
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 08:50 +0200, Jeremy Van Rooyen wrote:
This snippet is what I get in my email log(quit allot of them
everyday). On the user side I get the following (bounce back email):
Delivery Status Notification (Failure) or Message Undeliverable!
with the original email attached
: email address forgery
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 10:07 -0500, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 11/11/2010 9:11 AM, Jeremy Van Rooyen wrote:
Can anybody explain to me how to do this and how would I be able to
test it?
Jeremy,
I really like to use the following wizard to generate my SPF strings:
http
On 12.11.10 11:33, Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
Are there domains that have actually defined SPF record type records? I
haven’t been able to find any, but it could be the fault of the tools I’m
using.
the few domains in our employers' system(s) do have them set.
... and my domain too.
--
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 08:50 +0200, Jeremy Van Rooyen wrote:
Delivery Status Notification (Failure) or Message Undeliverable!
with the original email attached which is spam.
Backscatter.
Other than the SPF record, the SA VBounce plugin might also help you to
filter out the backscatter on your
On 11/11/2010 10:54 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4408
Thanks, the definition is what I guessed from Jason's response, and
tested on my DNS servers.
You should have also pointed out section 3.1.1 :
An SPF-compliant domain name SHOULD have SPF records of both RR
On 11/11/2010 7:07 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 11/11/2010 7:41 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
Really? I don't use SPF in SA, only MTA, if that's the case, it is a
shame that SA also is behind the times. It was years ago SPF type was
ratified. Justin: Any plans to change that?
I guess I'm one of those
On fre 12 nov 2010 23:43:06 CET, Ken A wrote
I find it useful for whitelisting (whitelist_auth) things like
banks, or other trusted, and properly configured SPF senders.
But, as a small ISP with lots of roaming users, SPF is pretty much
useless for outgoing mail (?all).
+all is also
On 11/12/2010 11:33 AM, Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
Are there domains that have actually defined SPF record type records?
I haven’t been able to find any, but it could be the fault of the
tools I’m using.
I set both for customers that request SPF records of any type and for
those without an
On 11/11/2010 9:45 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:35:11 -0500
Jason Bertochja...@i6ix.com wrote:
After many complaints from the DNS community over SPF hijacking the
TXT record, a new SPF record type was eventually accepted.
The proper fix would have been to make SPF lookups
On 11/11/2010 9:11 AM, Jeremy Van Rooyen wrote:
Can anybody explain to me how to do this and how would I be able to
test it?
Jeremy,
I really like to use the following wizard to generate my SPF strings:
http://www.openspf.org/
Scroll down to the section that says Deploying SPF, enter the
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 16:11 +0200, Jeremy Van Rooyen wrote:
Thanks to this list who help me(Newby) with my Spamassasin
configuration the last time, but here I am again.
I've been having email spoofing issues for sometime now and have
complaints about it allot.
Please elaborate. What exactly
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 10:07 -0500, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 11/11/2010 9:11 AM, Jeremy Van Rooyen wrote:
Can anybody explain to me how to do this and how would I be able to
test it?
Jeremy,
I really like to use the following wizard to generate my SPF strings:
http://www.openspf.org/
On 11/11/10 5:13 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
*and* as an SPF record type, the TXT method is deprecated,
but then again, SA doesn't support SPF record type, only TXT type..
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-999-5000
d: 561-948-2259
ISN: 1259*1300
*| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation
*
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 17:31 -0500, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 11/11/10 5:13 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
*and* as an SPF record type, the TXT method is deprecated,
but then again, SA doesn't support SPF record type, only TXT type..
Really? I don't use SPF in SA, only MTA, if that's the
On 11/11/2010 7:41 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 17:31 -0500, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 11/11/10 5:13 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
*and* as an SPF record type, the TXT method is deprecated,
but then again, SA doesn't support SPF record type, only TXT type..
Really? I don't use
On 11/11/2010 7:41 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
Really? I don't use SPF in SA, only MTA, if that's the case, it is a
shame that SA also is behind the times. It was years ago SPF type was
ratified. Justin: Any plans to change that?
I guess I'm one of those mail admins who is behind the times. But I
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 19:57 -0500, Jason Bertoch wrote:
On 11/11/2010 7:41 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
but then again, SA doesn't support SPF record type, only TXT type..
Really? I don't use SPF in SA, only MTA, if that's the case, it is
a shame that SA also is behind the times. It was
On 11/11/2010 4:13 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
*and* as an SPF record type, the TXT method is deprecated, but for
time being it's good to use it since there are a lot, and I mean a LOT
of outdated DNS servers around that do not support it even today, yes,
the fault of the DNS server admin for
On 11/11/2010 8:09 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 19:57 -0500, Jason Bertoch wrote:
On 11/11/2010 7:41 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
but then again, SA doesn't support SPF record type, only TXT type..
Really? I don't use SPF in SA, only MTA, if that's the case, it is
a shame
On 11/11/2010 8:38 PM, René Berber wrote:
On 11/11/2010 4:13 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
*and* as an SPF record type, the TXT method is deprecated, but for
time being it's good to use it since there are a lot, and I mean a LOT
of outdated DNS servers around that do not support it even today,
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:35:11 -0500
Jason Bertoch ja...@i6ix.com wrote:
After many complaints from the DNS community over SPF hijacking the
TXT record, a new SPF record type was eventually accepted.
The proper fix would have been to make SPF lookups for example.com
request the TXT record for
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 21:19 -0500, Jason Bertoch wrote:
On 11/11/2010 8:09 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
/me points at bugzilla
Guys, mind checking there? If there's not even a bug filed about it, the
answer most likely would be no plans yet. As an exercise to the
reader, if there's
On tor 11 nov 2010 23:13:51 CET, Noel Butler wrote
*and* as an SPF record type, the TXT method is deprecated, but for
time being it's good to use it since there are a lot, and I mean a LOT
of outdated DNS servers around that do not support it even today, yes,
the fault of the DNS server admin
On tor 11 nov 2010 23:31:11 CET, Michael Scheidell wrote
On 11/11/10 5:13 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
*and* as an SPF record type, the TXT method is deprecated,
but then again, SA doesn't support SPF record type, only TXT type..
uninstall Mail::SPF::Query
install Mail::SPF
problem solved have
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 20:07 -0500, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 11/11/2010 7:41 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
Really? I don't use SPF in SA, only MTA, if that's the case, it is a
shame that SA also is behind the times. It was years ago SPF type was
ratified. Justin: Any plans to change that?
I guess
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 19:38 -0600, René Berber wrote:
On 11/11/2010 4:13 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
*and* as an SPF record type, the TXT method is deprecated, but for
time being it's good to use it since there are a lot, and I mean a LOT
of outdated DNS servers around that do not support
To give more detail on my issue is as follows:
*example log: *
1PGasp-0007C4-Tl SA: Debug: SAEximRunCond expand returned: '1 '
1PGasp-0007C4-Tl SA: Debug: check succeeded, running spamc
1PGasp-0007C4-Tl SA: Action: scanned but message isn't spam: score=-1.0
required=7.0 (scanned in 1/1 secs |
50 matches
Mail list logo
