I like to think of SPF as my 'license' to use my domain or the domains
that I host to send email as though it is from one of my users. If I
have SPF records, I WANT other mail servers to respect that it is my
wish that ONLY MY authenticated users send email marked as such with my
permission.
Sorry, but this is not true. Eudora uses also 465.
On Dec 15, 2004, at 4:58 PM, Morris Jones wrote:
David B Funk wrote:
Eudora will not let you set any port other than 25 for outgoing SMTP.
Hopefully these will be fixed soon. I just guessed at the
configuration for my wife's Mac running Eudora,
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, David B Funk wrote:
Total agreement with this, but try to actually deploy it, client issues
galore.
Eudora will not let you set any port other than 25 for outgoing SMTP.
Technically you can, but effectively you are right since they make you jump
through hoops to do so.
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, David B Funk wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
Depoly SPF, use the submission port to talk to your own mail server, problem
solved.
Although that allows you to support roaming users, SPF still breaks mail
forwarding. It's usable as a
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Clarke Brunt wrote:
it seems to me that a 'fail' result is a perfectly good reason to reject
a message outright, which is what I do (without it even being passed to
SpamAssassin).
How many users do you have? Do none of them have vanity addresses?
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch
From: Clarke Brunt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jdow wrote:
Even more to the point SPF is NOT a reason to accept or reject mail.
All it does is verify the domain from which it originated. That is a
tool for SCORING spam not for outright elimination of messages that
have bad SPF records and
From: Kevin W. Gagel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: jdow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Clarke Brunt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jonathan Nichols wrote:
---snip---
Even more to the point SPF is NOT a reason to accept or
reject mail. All it does is verify the domain from which
it originated. That is a
At 11:55 PM 12/13/2004 -0500, Peter Matulis wrote:
Hi, I have heard that SPF is controversial among mail administrators. Why
is that?
I think mostly because people view it as a general purpose anti-spam tool.
With such a perspective, it's easy to poke holes in and declare it useless.
Spammers
[Sorry I'm not replying to the original mail, I seem to have missed it]
At 12/14/2004 10:01 AM +, someone wrote:
Hi, I have heard that SPF is controversial among mail administrators. Why
is that? How many
people use it (on this mailing list)?
My main beef is that SPF breaks forwarding
From: Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 11:55 PM 12/13/2004 -0500, Peter Matulis wrote:
ie: jdow wrote:
The chief thing SPF does is clutter up name server traffic to prove
something of little or no use when scoring spam.
A true argument, but utterly missing the point, unfortunately.
At 03:24 AM 12/15/2004, Max Paperno wrote:
At 12/15/2004 03:13 AM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
Of course, there's other arguments too.. Redirectors, forwarding
services, etc, but these have their solutions. (Hint: SPF at each stage,
and when you remail, use a return path that points at your own
At 04:05 AM 12/15/2004, jdow wrote:
From: Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 11:55 PM 12/13/2004 -0500, Peter Matulis wrote:
ie: jdow wrote:
The chief thing SPF does is clutter up name server traffic to prove
something of little or no use when scoring spam.
A true argument, but utterly
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, jdow wrote:
Why not configure your MTA to relay mail ONLY on encrypted authenticated
sessions, and deliver locally (after some anti-spam checks) on plain
sessions, all this done at port 25?
Setup an alternative mailer port for your machine on a different port
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, jdow wrote:
Why not configure your MTA to relay mail ONLY on encrypted authenticated
sessions, and deliver locally (after some anti-spam checks) on plain
sessions, all this done at port 25?
[snip..]
Actually,
Hi, I have heard that SPF is controversial among mail administrators. Why is
that? How many
people use it (on this mailing list)?
Peter
__
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Clarke Brunt wrote:
Hi, I have heard that SPF is controversial among mail administrators. Why
is that? How many
people use it (on this mailing list)?
It's certainly not a simple subject: anyone who isn't familiar see
http://spf.pobox.com/
So long as you're careful, and realise that mistakes
Jonathan Nichols wrote:
I scrapped SPF, actually. Found that certain providers, such as
T-Mobile, re-direct intercept outbound port 25 traffic, making SPF
more of a pain in the neck.
Example: I try to send mail to this list from a T-Mobile Hotspot
(Starbucks) - it gets kicked back because
On Tuesday 14 December 2004 15:52, Clarke Brunt wrote:
You can set up your own SMTP server which listens on an alternative port (to
avoid redirection of 25), and allows relaying for _authenticated_
connections, then arrange to submit _all_ your mail through it. Then your
SPF record will
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:52:37 -, Clarke Brunt wrote
Jonathan Nichols wrote:
Example: I try to send mail to this list from a T-Mobile Hotspot
(Starbucks) - it gets kicked back because SF.net uses SPF, and my SPF
records don't show m55415454.tmodns.net in the SPF records. So what can
I
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Yassen Damyanov wrote:
Why not configure your MTA to relay mail ONLY on encrypted authenticated
sessions, and deliver locally (after some anti-spam checks) on plain
sessions, all this done at port 25?
The subject at hand is getting SPF working for providers that block port
From: Yassen Damyanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday 14 December 2004 15:52, Clarke Brunt wrote:
You can set up your own SMTP server which listens on an alternative port
(to
avoid redirection of 25), and allows relaying for _authenticated_
connections, then arrange to submit _all_ your
jdow wrote:
Even more to the point SPF is NOT a reason to accept or reject mail.
All it does is verify the domain from which it originated. That is a
tool for SCORING spam not for outright elimination of messages that
have bad SPF records and accepting those that have good SPF records.
It is
- Original Message Follows -
From: jdow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: consensus on SPF
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:42:38 -0800
From: Clarke Brunt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jonathan Nichols wrote:
---snip---
Even more to the point SPF is NOT a reason
23 matches
Mail list logo
