On Mittwoch, 22. März 2006 00:11 Sander Holthaus wrote:
and it wouldn't surprise me
if actively rejecting SPF-fails has the similar effects as strict
RFC-enforcement or double reverse DNS-lookup. Lots less spam and lots
more false positives.
No, because
1) by forcing strict RFC, lots of HAM
On Mittwoch, 22. März 2006 18:47 Bazooka Joe wrote:
with isp's blocking port 25 and requireing you to use thier mail
server how are business going to enable spf of thier domain when
thier employees could be sending mail from hundreds of different mail
servers??
Use VPNs. Never allow anybody
Matt Kettler wrote:
Real numbers from last week:
Total messages scanned by SA:
19268
Number of messages matching SPF_FAIL:
89
Number of messages matching SPF_SOFTFAIL
493
Number of messages matching SPF_NEUTRAL
200
Number of messages matching SPF_PASS
6064
These
Matthew.van.Eerde wrote:
pass: 467
none: 3297
softfail: 139
fail: 106
error: 2
Oops, forgot neutral
none: 3357
pass: 486
neutral: 91
softfail: 140
fail: 110
error: 2
--
Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com Software
with isp's blocking port 25 and requireing you to use thier mail server
how are business going to enable spf of thier domain when thier
employees could be sending mail from hundreds of different mail
servers??On 3/22/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:Matthew.van.Eerde wrote: pass: 467
Bazooka Joe wrote:
with isp's blocking port 25 and requireing you to use thier mail
server how are business going to enable spf of thier domain when
thier employees could be sending mail from hundreds of different mail
servers??
No-one's holding a gun to their head. If they don't want to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Notice my FAIL percentage is much higher. This is probably because my domain
publishes a -all record, and the most-frequently-spoofed domain for mail I
receive is my own.
I publish as soft-fail.
That said, SA doesn't receive that much email
On Dienstag, 21. März 2006 06:28 jdow wrote:
I'd hazard a guess that there is about as much spam that passes SPF
tests as there is ham that passes SPF tests.
I bet. SPF is NOT a means to check whether it's SPAM or HAM. It can just
tell you if a sender host is permitted to send e-mail for the
jdow a écrit :
I'd hazard a guess that there is about as much spam that passes SPF tests
as there is ham that passes SPF tests.
I'd follow. I even think there are more spammers with good spf than
legit' people with spf.
At least in the case of spam it means the blacklists mean something.
Michael Monnerie a écrit :
I bet. SPF is NOT a means to check whether it's SPAM or HAM. It can just
tell you if a sender host is permitted to send e-mail for the given
domain, so you can prevent *forgery* of e-mails, which I find
important. I don't want others to be able to send from
On Dienstag, 21. März 2006 21:42 mouss wrote:
- if you wanna add spf records, do
- if you wanna check spf, do
And if you don't care about spoofs, don't check it.
mfg zmi
--
// Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc --- it-management Michael Monnerie
// http://zmi.at Tel: 0660/4156531
On Dienstag, 21. März 2006 21:35 mouss wrote:
I'd follow. I even think there are more spammers with good spf than
legit' people with spf.
Could also be. SPF still doesn't help against SPAM, just against
forgery. Where SPAM often tries to forge, but thats another story.
one thing we know:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Anyone have monthly numbers for the percentages of
sites that have SPF turned on for their incoming messages?
I.e. if you received 1000 messages last month... how many
unique domains were represented, and of those, how many
had SPF enabled? And how many messages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Monnerie wrote:
On Dienstag, 21. März 2006 21:35 mouss wrote:
I'd follow. I even think there are more spammers with good spf
than legit' people with spf.
Could also be. SPF still doesn't help against SPAM, just against
forgery. Where
From: Michael Monnerie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And if you don't care about spoofs, don't check it.
Not long ago I learned about a malformed spf spoof trick that allowed
spam through from addresses not normally allowed to send it directly.
{^_^}
Anyone have monthly numbers for the percentages of
sites that have SPF turned on for their incoming messages?
I.e. if you received 1000 messages last month... how many
unique domains were represented, and of those, how many
had SPF enabled? And how many messages turned out to
be spoofed by the
From: Philip Prindeville [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyone have monthly numbers for the percentages of
sites that have SPF turned on for their incoming messages?
I.e. if you received 1000 messages last month... how many
unique domains were represented, and of those, how many
had SPF enabled? And how
17 matches
Mail list logo
