Re: OT: Google alerts FP's
> 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
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
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
> 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
Re: OT: Google alerts FP's
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
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
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
