On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 03:15:34AM +0200, Jérôme Blion wrote:
eg: some AOL mail servers are not registered in the SPF field of aol.com.
Hmmm... looking at AOL's SPF record, I see in addition to several ip4
records a ptr record and a terminal '?all', so there's no hard fail
mechanism.
Be that
Tim Lyth wrote:
Hi all,
My wife has complained that a number of genuine (advertising) email have
been classified as spam by SA, yet they have SPF_PASS in the list of
tests run against the email. Unfortunately, SPF_PASS is given 0.0
weighting by SA and therefore the emails are being
Am Samstag, 6. September 2008 03:15 schrieb Jérôme Blion:
[…]
More over, when using mailing lists, it's a bad idea to reject any mail
with a failed SPF check.
Why? Sensible mailing list software replaces the Sender: header field so that
the sender address uses a domain belonging to the
Wolfgang Jeltsch writes:
Am Samstag, 6. September 2008 03:15 schrieb Jérôme Blion:
[…]
More over, when using mailing lists, it's a bad idea to reject any mail
with a failed SPF check.
Why? Sensible mailing list software replaces the Sender: header field so that
the sender address uses a
Am Samstag, 6. September 2008 20:38 schrieb Sam Varshavchik:
Wolfgang Jeltsch writes:
Am Samstag, 6. September 2008 03:15 schrieb Jérôme Blion:
[…]
More over, when using mailing lists, it's a bad idea to reject any mail
with a failed SPF check.
Why? Sensible mailing list software
Wolfgang Jeltsch writes:
Am Samstag, 6. September 2008 20:38 schrieb Sam Varshavchik:
Wolfgang Jeltsch writes:
Am Samstag, 6. September 2008 03:15 schrieb Jérôme Blion:
[…]
More over, when using mailing lists, it's a bad idea to reject any mail
with a failed SPF check.
Why? Sensible
Steve Shockley wrote:
Tim Lyth wrote:
What do people recommend I do?
New wife is the only reasonable option.
I like the lateral thinking.
And I HAVE considered that, but for other reasons...
Cheers,
Tim Lyth
Hi all,
My wife has complained that a number of genuine (advertising) email have
been classified as spam by SA, yet they have SPF_PASS in the list of
tests run against the email. Unfortunately, SPF_PASS is given 0.0
weighting by SA and therefore the emails are being classified as spam.
I'm
Tim Lyth a écrit :
Hi all,
My wife has complained that a number of genuine (advertising) email have
been classified as spam by SA, yet they have SPF_PASS in the list of
tests run against the email. Unfortunately, SPF_PASS is given 0.0
weighting by SA and therefore the emails are being
On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 01:45:13AM +1000, Tim Lyth wrote:
I'm tempted to dig through the SA config file to edit the weighting for
the SPF_PASS test, but I'm concerned that this may lead to
false-negatives for genuine spam.
Myself, if I were using SA instead of DSPAM: I'd use Courier's
On 5.9.2008 17:45, Tim Lyth wrote:
I'm tempted to dig through the SA config file to edit the weighting for
the SPF_PASS test, but I'm concerned that this may lead to
false-negatives for genuine spam.
What do people recommend I do?
Well, considering that SPF is not a anti-spam technique,
Art Sackett a écrit :
On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 01:45:13AM +1000, Tim Lyth wrote:
I'm tempted to dig through the SA config file to edit the weighting for
the SPF_PASS test, but I'm concerned that this may lead to
false-negatives for genuine spam.
Myself, if I were using SA instead of
Tim Lyth wrote:
What do people recommend I do?
New wife is the only reasonable option.
Can't SA do some kind of whitelist?
-
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest
13 matches
Mail list logo
