Hi All,
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.
I need to implement SPF checks If I'm correct on thinking so, to handle
email spoofing
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 11/10/10 11:39 AM, John Williams wrote:
No on my server I have a hard requirement to run SELinux. I cannot turn that
off. I find that when i enable SA with SELinux turned on, my CPU rate sky
rockets eventually forcing my system to stop responding. I've seen this thread
several times
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
*
Guys, anyone else seeing these? What I am mostly interested in is,
whether this pattern is specific to this long-standing German spam run,
or if there are actually payload variants in other languages, too.
header BCDE From:addr =~ /^(?:[bcde][a-z]){16,}\@/
Going from memory, they are botnet
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 |
21 matches
Mail list logo
