Just a heads up that I've been working on getting a new VM stood up to
replace two of our current VMs for the project involved with masscheck.
At the same time, I've been trying to identify some of the issues
especially since some of the issue involved processing we handled that
was not
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:23:55 +0100
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> with use of PTR its always up2date, problem is just that none spf
> testers are doing FcRDNS checked before saying spf pass
Unlikely. The SPF spec says that you must do that, and most SPF libraries
probably do the
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:23:55 +0100
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Dianne Skoll skrev den 2017-01-27 19:02:
> > On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:40:16 -0500
> > Rob McEwen wrote:
> >
> >> While I have Yahoo sending IPs extensively covered in my whitelist,
> >> I've been trying to get
Dianne Skoll skrev den 2017-01-27 19:02:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:40:16 -0500
Rob McEwen wrote:
While I have Yahoo sending IPs extensively covered in my whitelist,
I've been trying to get their complete official list of sending IPs
for years.
Yahoo might want the
the SPF record can change too, so that makes no difference.
On 27.01.17 16:57, David Jones wrote:
We have to assume that a competent mail sysadmin would
make that SPF record change. It has to be trusted since that's
the whole point of SPF.
The easy workaround is to put ptr: into the SPF
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:40:16 -0500
Rob McEwen wrote:
> While I have Yahoo sending IPs extensively covered in my whitelist,
> I've been trying to get their complete official list of sending IPs
> for years.
Yahoo might want the flexibility to change this list on a regular
While I have Yahoo sending IPs extensively covered in my whitelist, I've
been trying to get their complete official list of sending IPs for years.
I'm amazed that Yahoo doesn't participate in these conversations - or
that nobody ever says, "I'll ask my colleague over at Yahoo"
seems very
>the SPF record can change too, so that makes no difference.
We have to assume that a competent mail sysadmin would
make that SPF record change. It has to be trusted since that's
the whole point of SPF.
>MailScanner can still (and its SA plugin will) use the results described
>above.
I know
On 26.01.17 19:53, David Jones wrote:
Their SPF record can really only be evaluated by the MTA during
the SMTP conversation.
From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas
SPF records can be perfectly parser by SA or other software at
different time.
On 27.01.17 12:43, David Jones
>From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas
>Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 2:15 PM
>On 26.01.17 19:53, David Jones wrote:
>>I understand what their SPF record means and how it works
>>but what they are publishing in their SPF record is not common.
>>Normally this would expand out to
10 matches
Mail list logo