Re: OT: Google alerts FP's

2008-11-21 Thread ram
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 11:26 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
 On 17.11.08 18:15, Mark Martinec wrote:
   I have been using USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST to whitelist mails from google
   alerts
   It had been working fine , but last 2-3 days I see that these mails dont
   get an SPF-pass. Seems guys at google are using some other servers
  
  whitelist_from_dkim  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 whitelist_auth should apply for both SPF and DKIM
 
 (hmmm, what if the mail passes one check, but fails the another?)
 

Oops sorry,
The trusted networks setting was wrong on one of the servers. That
messed up the SPF. 



Re: OT: Google alerts FP's

2008-11-21 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
 On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 11:26 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
  On 17.11.08 18:15, Mark Martinec wrote:
I have been using USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST to whitelist mails from google
alerts
It had been working fine , but last 2-3 days I see that these mails dont
get an SPF-pass. Seems guys at google are using some other servers
   
   whitelist_from_dkim  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  whitelist_auth should apply for both SPF and DKIM
  
  (hmmm, what if the mail passes one check, but fails the another?)

On 21.11.08 15:46, ram wrote:
 The trusted networks setting was wrong on one of the servers. That
 messed up the SPF. 

I thought SPF checks are done on internal_networks boundary, or?

-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
M$ Win's are shit, do not use it !


Re: OT: Google alerts FP's

2008-11-18 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 17.11.08 18:15, Mark Martinec wrote:
  I have been using USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST to whitelist mails from google
  alerts
  It had been working fine , but last 2-3 days I see that these mails dont
  get an SPF-pass. Seems guys at google are using some other servers
 
 whitelist_from_dkim  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

whitelist_auth should apply for both SPF and DKIM

(hmmm, what if the mail passes one check, but fails the another?)

-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains? 


Re: OT: Google alerts FP's

2008-11-17 Thread ram

On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 07:32 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
 On Mon, November 17, 2008 05:48, ram wrote:
  I have been using USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST to whitelist mails from google
  alerts
 
  It had been working fine , but last 2-3 days I see that these mails dont
  get an SPF-pass. Seems guys at google are using some other servers
 
 
 Authentication-Results: localhost.junc.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Authentication-Results: localhost.junc.org (amavisd-new); domainkeys=pass
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  How can I report to them , The gmail/google alerts site does not have
  any such contact form
 
 might have dropped spf, but dkim works still on the alerts
 
 enable dkim in spamassassin then if not done already

They havent dropped SPF , because most other mails still get correct
results 

Enabling dkim plugin,  will it  increase resource requirements on my
server ? The SPF checks are just on the envelope/helo and ip .. so
obviously must be much cheaper 

Thanks
Ram






Re: OT: Google alerts FP's

2008-11-17 Thread Mark Martinec
ram,
 Enabling dkim plugin,  will it  increase resource requirements on my
 server ? The SPF checks are just on the envelope/helo and ip .. so
 obviously must be much cheaper

If you have a recent version of SpamAssassin (3.2.4 or later)
and fairly recent version of Mail::DKIM (0.32) the computational
cost is quite low. DKIM Plugin takes a millisecond or two for
messages with no signature, and perhaps 8..20 milliseconds for
signed messages, which is almost negligible compared to other
tests. There is one additional DNS query for each signature
encountered (if any), but this just adds a bit of latency and
does not reduce aggregate mail throughput of a spam filter.

Turn off scores:
  score DKIM_POLICY_SIGNALL  0
  score DKIM_POLICY_SIGNSOME 0
  score DKIM_POLICY_TESTING  0
to avoid one additional DNS lookup for a policy record, as
this is currently very rarely used in practice and hard-coded
rules are more effective against popularly faked domains
(like eBay, PayPal, yahoo).

  Mark


Re: OT: Google alerts FP's

2008-11-17 Thread Mark Martinec
 I have been using USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST to whitelist mails from google
 alerts
 It had been working fine , but last 2-3 days I see that these mails dont
 get an SPF-pass. Seems guys at google are using some other servers

whitelist_from_dkim  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


  Mark


OT: Google alerts FP's

2008-11-16 Thread ram
I have been using USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST to whitelist mails from google
alerts 

It had been working fine , but last 2-3 days I see that these mails dont
get an SPF-pass. Seems guys at google are using some other servers 

How can I report to them , The gmail/google alerts site does not have
any such contact form 







Re: OT: Google alerts FP's

2008-11-16 Thread Benny Pedersen

On Mon, November 17, 2008 05:48, ram wrote:
 I have been using USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST to whitelist mails from google
 alerts

 It had been working fine , but last 2-3 days I see that these mails dont
 get an SPF-pass. Seems guys at google are using some other servers


Authentication-Results: localhost.junc.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Authentication-Results: localhost.junc.org (amavisd-new); domainkeys=pass
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 How can I report to them , The gmail/google alerts site does not have
 any such contact form

might have dropped spf, but dkim works still on the alerts

enable dkim in spamassassin then if not done already


-- 
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098