: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 9:12 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF Issue
Seems all is OK
thank you al for your help
Serge
- Original Message -
From: Andy Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 2
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Serge
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 10:18 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF Issue
Hi all
I have som SPF issues
It was working fine some times back
I use Mixrosoft dns
I have
(same as parent)Text v=spf1 mx ip4:217.64.107.106 -all
mail
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
S Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 12:41 PM
S Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF Issue
What is the issue? What error message? Was it bounced mail? What did the
NDR
say? I could be a recipient trying to forward mail to another server, or
an
end-user trying to send
(unless they have cached information).
S - Original Message -
S From: Andy Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
S To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
S Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 12:41 PM
S Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF Issue
What is the issue? What error message? Was it bounced mail
The mx should not be naked.
Actually, naked mx mechanism is fine. So is -all (deny-all being
preferable to anything looser). The cefib.com TXT record is a valid
SPF record.
The problem is likely to be an NXDOMAIN received by DNSStuff, perhaps
due to routing problems. Other remote
Hi all
I have som SPF issues
It was working fine some times back
I use Mixrosoft dns
I have
(same as parent)Text v=spf1 mx ip4:217.64.107.106 -all
mailText v=spf1 mx ip4:217.64.107.106 -all
What is wrong with above ?
TIA
---
This E-mail came from the
I have som SPF issues
What issues?
Did you validate your TXT record at openspf?
--Sandy
Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist
Broadleaf Systems, a division of
Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc.
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SpamAssassin plugs into Declude!
I am not really sure how to set this up but I would like to make sure that
if a domain has an spf record that it is checked and if it is not legit it
is immediately marked as spam. Also, is it possible to do this on my domain
as I get a lot of spoofed email to my domain using my domain as a return
, 2007 9:05 AM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF (Fail or Pass)
I am not really sure how to set this up but I would like to make sure that
if a domain has an spf record that it is checked and if it is not legit it
is immediately marked as spam. Also, is it possible to do this on my domain
as I get a lot
I was looking through my settings and noticed that SPF is
enabled for Imails anti-spam but all other tests are disabled. I am
using Declude junkmail so is there any reason to have SPF enabled for Imail?
Mark Reimer
IT System Admin
American CareSource
972-308-6887
---This
934-9206
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark ReimerSent:
Thursday, October 26, 2006 04:16 PMTo: Declude
JunkMailSubject: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF in Imail
I was looking through my settings
and noticed that SPF is enabled for Imails anti-spam but all other
Nope. Just Pass (Pass or Soft Fail), Fail (Hard Fail), or Unknown (no SPF
record).
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: David Dodell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 11:01 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF Hard vs Soft Fail
I couldn't
), Fail (Hard Fail), or Unknown (no SPF
record).
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: David Dodell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 11:01 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF Hard vs Soft Fail
I couldn't find it in the Declude docs
, 2006 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF Hard vs Soft Fail
Darin,
I don't believe that is correct. The SPFPASS will not be trigged on a
soft fail, only if an email actually matches the SPF record, as the
SPFFAIL will only be trigged if the email explicitly fails the SPF
test. The UNKNOWN
I couldn't find it in the Declude docs, but is there a test for SPF
Hard vs Soft Fail?
David
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found
at
I've seen all the talk for and against SPF on this list, and I've been trying
to decide how much weight I want to give SPF. (I'm currently using Declude
3.0.6.4 and SmarterMail 2.6). I started playing around with SmarterMail's SPF
tags by setting them to a low or zero weight just so I could
]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF tests in Declude
I've seen all the talk for and against SPF on this list, and I've been
trying to decide how much weight I want to give SPF. (I'm currently using
Declude 3.0.6.4 and SmarterMail
: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF tests in Declude
Many spammers have an SPF record. So the SPFPASS deserves no negative
weight. I have SPFPASS set at zero
Here's my settings:
SPFPASS spf pass x 0 0
SPFUNKNOWN spf unknown x 0 0
SPFFAIL spf fail x 50 0
- Original Message
] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 5:49 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF tests in Declude
I assume the values I show are the default ones that came
with Declude. However, that's not my issue. The values are
meaningless
@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF tests in Declude
I assume the values I show are the default ones that came with Declude.
However, that's not my issue. The values are meaningless if the test is not
working. I'm not even sure that Delude is using these values, since I never
, March 07, 2006 6:37 PM
To: Colbeck, Andrew
Subject: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] spf breaks email forwarding -
If you want to perservere and build your own forwarding
system, what I
found was that. . .
Andrew, I like your workaround with the Program Alias.
However, I think
Ta-dah! Easy as world peace.
Andrew 8)
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Nick
Hayer
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 1:13 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spf breaks email forwarding -
Matt wr
Hi Sandy
Sanford Whiteman wrote:
Andrew, I like your workaround with the Program Alias. However, I
think that instead, if people are willing to wait a few weeks to a
month, I can find time to put out a full-fledged external test for
Declude that does much the same thing,
On 11:39 PM 3/6/2006 -0500, it would appear that Sanford Whiteman wrote:
Sure it is, SPF is NOT an RFC and if the email follows RFC then it
is legit.
I'm afraid you have a rather exaggerated opinion of the relevance of
RFCs, and of the concept of domain ownership. RFCs are
Please don't assume that you have any idea how my policies are set.
I'm not assuming: you've made some of them public. For example, you
touted day-of-week and hour tests as effective gauges of spamminess.
Note that I don't disagree at all with your conclusions about these
tests. I
D*.SMD file (which can be any filename) you can just
call:
smtp32.exe Qxxx.SMD and IMail will queue it up
immediately.
Ta-dah! Easy as world peace.
Andrew 8)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick
HayerSent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 1:13 PMTo:
If you want to perservere and build your own forwarding system, what
I found was that. . .
Andrew, I like your workaround with the Program Alias. However, I
think that instead, if people are willing to wait a few weeks to a
month, I can find time to put out a full-fledged external
t call:
smtp32.exe Qxxx.SMD and
IMail will queue it up immediately.
Ta-dah! Easy as world peace.
Andrew 8)
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Nick
Hayer
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 1:13 PM
To: Declude
Back to SRS. SRS isn't just simply changing the Mail From address,
it is a system that requires both the encoding and parsing of the
Mail From addresses, and it requires both the sending and receiving
MTA to be SRS aware. The following is from what is apparently the
master SRS
Couldn't you get around this whole issue by just adding the forwarding server to the SPF record?
Dean
On 3/5/06, Sanford Whiteman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perfectly legit email - my spf recs are perfect etc.No,it's*not*legit!Domainowners set SPF policies that dictate
On 08:54 PM 3/5/2006 -0500, it would appear that Sanford Whiteman
wrote:
Perfectly legit email - my
spf recs are perfect etc.
No, it's *not* legit!
Sure it is, SPF is NOT an RFC and if the email follows RFC then it is
legit.
My users don't
have the right to have this restriction
completely
Sure it is, SPF is NOT an RFC and if the email follows RFC then it
is legit.
I'm afraid you have a rather exaggerated opinion of the relevance of
RFCs, and of the concept of domain ownership. RFCs are meaningless
when it comes to the acceptable use of your domain (which is protected
by
Perfectly legit email - my spf recs are perfect etc.
No, it's *not* legit! Domain owners set SPF policies that dictate
legitimacy. This is their right. SMTP server owners respect SPF
policies. This is my obligation. If Adelphia sets a strict SPF policy,
and SurfGlobal respects it,
Email customers that forward through me are getting their email bounced
because of the original sending domain's spf policy. I understand this
delima is addressed with Sender Rewriting Scheme
http://www.openspf.org/srs.html
Does anyone have a solution to this w/Declude Imail?
Thanks
] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Hayer
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 11:40 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] spf breaks email forwarding -
Email customers that forward through me are getting their email bounced
because of the original sending
I'm not aware of any mail server that supports the Sender Rewriting
Scheme. It's certainly a fine idea, but the real issue is that the SPF
implementation has issues with forwarded E-mail, and they are seeking to
have mail servers correct their shortcoming. It may be a very long-time
in
PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Nick Hayer
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 11:40 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] spf breaks email forwarding -
Email customers that forward through me are getting their email bounced
because of the original sending domain's spf policy. I
Nick Hayer
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 11:40 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] spf breaks email forwarding -
Email customers that forward through me are getting their email bounced
because of the original sending domain's spf policy. I understand this
delima is
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Hayer
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 2:40 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] spf breaks email forwarding -
Email customers that forward through me are getting their email bounced
@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spf breaks email forwarding -
The problem is not anything I am doing - it with SPF itself. By design
forwarded email will bounce if the receiving MTA is configed that way.
Even if I whitelist the emails they will bounce...
Let me explain -
user
Matt wrote:
Real-world issues include working around bad implementation, such as
surfglobal.net not configuring their server to reject messages that
fail SPF.
SRS is a work around - and I'm simply asking if anyone has implemented
it on an Imail/Declude platform. Kindly stay on topic I
Hayer
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 12:27 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail]
spf breaks email forwarding -
The problem is not anything I am doing - it with SPF
itself. By design forwarded email will bounce if the receiving MTA is configed
that way. Even if I
Someone could write a plug-in or Declude could be modified to handle
this, or IMail could be modified to handle this (and then Declude would
probably need to be updated to handle what IMail changed).
Why implement a work around in a standards compliant platform in order
to deal with a flawed
Hear hear.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 4:36 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spf breaks email forwarding -
Someone could write a plug
Quick question on the global.cfg file
I upgraded to 3.0.5 yesterday. Working great so far. I want
to add the SPFPASS and SPFFAIL tests.. what is the format ? I want to subtract
7 points for a pass, and add 7 points for a fail( if theyre too
stupid to have an SPF by now )
I have this,
of their IP address in SpamCop).
Andrew 8)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of IS - Systems
Eng. (Karl Drugge)Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 10:09
AMTo: declude.junkmail@declude.comSubject:
[Declude.JunkMail] SPF PASS/FAIL test format
Quick
Also make sure you have at least version
3.0.5.20
Previous 3.0.5. versions had an error with SPF
Original Message -
From:
IS - Systems Eng. (Karl Drugge)
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:08
PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail
FisherSent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 10:55 AMTo:
Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF
PASS/FAIL test format
Also make sure you have at least version
3.0.5.20
Previous 3.0.5. versions had an error with SPF
Original Message -
From
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Scott
FisherSent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 10:55 AMTo:
Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF
PASS/FAIL test format
Also make sure you have at least version
3.0.5.20
: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF
PASS/FAIL test format
I have
quick question re. 3.0 version of Declude.
I
installed both the .20 and the .21 version on a windows 2003 enterprise server
with Imail 8.15 hf2 and discovered a memory leak.
I've
not heard back from Declude as to a fix.
I'd
like to go to 8.22
traditional RBL's. Try it today - http://www.invariantsystems.com
- Original Message -
From:
IS - Systems Eng. (Karl Drugge)
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 1:08
PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF PASS/FAIL
test format
Quick
still unacceptable and reason enough for me to discard SPF completely.
I think the discusson is missing the key point of SPF. Sure, this list is
focused on INCOMING spam, and thus we restricting our discussions to
SPFFAIL/SPFPASS and how to use it in Declude.
However, that ignores what SPF is
That's right on the money, Andy.
I agree 100%.
Andrew 8)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Schmidt
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 8:48 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF - Missing
Excellent point, Andy. Not just detecting spoofing, but changing behavior
to avoid future spoofing.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Andy Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 11:47 AM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF
On 11:47 AM 9/8/2005 -0400, it would appear that Andy Schmidt wrote:
still unacceptable and reason enough for me to discard SPF completely.
I think the discusson is missing the key point of SPF. Sure, this list is
focused on INCOMING spam, and thus we restricting our discussions to
it's perfect, but it can be implemented in a useful
fashion.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Tyran Ormond [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 12:39 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF - Missing the Point
On 11:47 AM 9/8/2005 -0400
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy Schmidt
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 8:48 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF - Missing the Point
still unacceptable and reason enough for me to discard SPF
completely
:
Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF -
Missing the Point
But isn't this utopian? The majority of situations have
exceptions as they apply to SPF, and in a world where there are open relays on
every corner, many servers without proper reverse DNS records, etc., would you
really want
PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 01:55 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF - Missing the Point
But isn't this utopian? The majority of situations have exceptions as
they apply to SPF, and in a world where there are open
Just noticed that the SPF logs that were stored in C:\ are gone. Did
they get moved or where they done away with?
They were done away with. They were part of the beta testing of SPF.
-Scott
---
Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution
Repost.
- Original Message -
From: Darin Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 10:59 AM
Subject: SPF logs
Just noticed that the SPF logs that were stored in C:\ are gone. Did
they get moved or where they done away with?
Darin.
---
Just noticed that the SPF logs that were stored in C:\ are gone. Did
they get moved or where they done away with?
Darin.
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send
Title: Message
... a
decline in the good guys making the MAILFROM some other domain, like the target
addressee itself?
I have
a simple filter file called Spoof which triggers when an inbound mail hasa
MAILFROM in my domain instead of theirs. Typical
good-but-clueless senders included:
Title: Message
I've seen comments that during Christmas '02, many e-card sites would
forge, but by '03 most had change their methods, and I didn't
personally see any e-card issues this year. I believe that the same
thing has been happening elsewhere. Another big issue was the
. . . I haven't yet seen whether or not CDO allows for this, and if
it doesn't, it predisposes the developer to forge.
FYI, CDO (CDOSYS) allows for the requisite separate values.
--Sandy
Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist
Broadleaf Systems, a division
.
Markus
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
MattSent: Friday, December 24, 2004 3:24 PMTo:
Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF
Success
To enter SPF settings in a majority DNS server out there,
especially those
: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF Success
Middling success, but definitely beneficial...the biggest
benefit we've seen is in blocking forged spam from domains we
serve. By implementing SPF for those domains, we can fail
email that doesn't come from our servers. So, forging spam
that uses
name
change where you still want the website traffic, but no email from it
anymore.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Markus Gufler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 4:34 AM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF Success
As many Admin's who
Message -
From: Darin Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF Success
Certainly. We have a few customers that use other mail servers, so for
those we set the basic SPF record that says we don't know where
m: "Darin Cox" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF Success
Certainly. We have a few customers that use other mail servers, so for
those we set the basic SPF record that says we don't know wh
Hi;
I have added a
couple of filters that work quite well using SPF. Although by itself it
does not do much but as a combination it is working for us.
Towards the end of
the filters I have a couple of combo filters that I called [Elevate.?] where ?
is the category of elevate weight.
The
: Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: RE:
[Declude.JunkMail] SPF Success
Hi;
I have added a
couple of filters that work quite well using SPF. Although by itself it
does not do much but as a combination it is working for
us.
Towards the end
of the filters I have a couple of combo
I'm setting up SPF. Just wondering what success SPF has had with
marking spam for anyone?
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
is easily
caught.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Danny [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 8:48 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF Success
I'm setting up SPF. Just wondering what success SPF has had with
marking spam for anyone
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 4:29 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF record
Hello,
Perhaps this is the wrong place to ask. If so,
please let me know.
We have Imail/Declude installed on a private network,
and is accessed through a firewall that has our public address. I
have put
1:48 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF
record
I would either put the private IP in the SPF
record, use WHITELIST AUTH to whitelist users who authenticate with the SMTP
server, or counterbalance the SPF test failure weight with an IP
whitelist.
Darin
for the internal Exchange box.
Thanks again
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Morgan
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 1:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF record
We have Imail/Declude installed
Title: SPF record
Hello,
Perhaps this is the wrong place to ask. If so, please let me know.
We have Imail/Declude installed on a private network, and is accessed through a firewall that has our public address. I have put an SPF record on our public DNS server. As far as I can tell, it's
We have Imail/Declude installed on a private network, and is
accessed through a firewall that has our public address. I
have put an SPF record on our public DNS server. As far as
I can tell, it's correct and working as it should EXCEPT when
one user of our domain sends mail to another
Thanks, Scott.
Ben
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF question
I have a question about setting up the SPF string.
If I use this string:
v=spf1 a mx
Hi,
I have a question about setting up the SPF string.
If I use this string:
v=spf1 a mx a:bcw5, a:bcw6 -all
as a text record in our domain (bcwebhost.net), then the SPF test checks the
sending IP and tries to match it against either bcw5.bcwebhost.net or
bcw6.bcwebhost.net. The -all option
I have a question about setting up the SPF string.
If I use this string:
v=spf1 a mx a:bcw5, a:bcw6 -all
as a text record in our domain (bcwebhost.net), then the SPF test checks the
sending IP and tries to match it against either bcw5.bcwebhost.net or
bcw6.bcwebhost.net. The -all option says
After reading this article on SPF I am wondering about the merits of SPF:
http://securitypronews.com/news/securitynews/spn-45-2004090816PercentofSpammersAdoptSPFEmailAuthenticationScheme.html
Is SPF going to be exploited to the point where is is of little value?
That is good news -- that means
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also is anyone using the WHITELIST HABEAS test? Are there any pros or
cons to activating this test?
Right now, it isn't of much benefit, since spammers started using it a
while ago, and couldn't get caught. Even Habeas
- Original Message -
From: Imail Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 11:47
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF issue
I've been just begging for motivation to upgrade from 7.15 to 8.x, and so
far, the only good reason I've found
and just work around the
absence of WHITELIST AUTH.
Ben Bednarz
BC Web
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Bilbee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 4:42 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF issue
No, the probem you are having is with your own
I thought i had a
handle on this SPF stuff, but i think i've got something wrong in my
understanding.
I've set up my SPF
record for our domain with the following record:
choicenet1.com
v=spf1
ip4:207.170.239.11 ip4:207.170.239.4 a mx -all
From my
understanding of this, the ip4's are
Now, my dialup customers are on a different subnet and log into our imail
server using smtp auth. When they send emails out, shouldn't the ip addy
of the email then take on the ip addy of the email server in the eyes of
the receiving mail server?
No. Otherwise, it would defeat the purpose of
, September 29, 2004 4:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF issue
Unfortunately i'm running imail 7.07 and it doesn't look like
we'll be going
to 8.x anytime soon. So, if i change my spf record to include
the ip pool
of my dialup users, i should be ok, correct
I was hoping someone could help me with SPF settings. Currently any domain
that has an unknown SPF, is not supported or does not exist has -3 (same as
SPF pass) applied to the overall total. I found the log file spf.none that
has these domains listed. How do I get 0 points applied if a domain is
I was hoping someone could help me with SPF settings. Currently any domain
that has an unknown SPF, is not supported or does not exist has -3 (same as
SPF pass) applied to the overall total.
spfpass spf pass x 0 -3
spffail spf fail x 0 -3
With these settings, any E-mail that does not pass and/or
We've implemented SPF for all the domains we do mail hosting for, and have
enabled SPF checking on Declude. Only one thing remains, and that is the
issue of message envelopes. The big thing that busts SPF is a message
forwarding, and the only way around this is to rewrite the envelope. I know
We've implemented SPF for all the domains we do mail hosting for, and have
enabled SPF checking on Declude. Only one thing remains, and that is the
issue of message envelopes. The big thing that busts SPF is a message
forwarding, and the only way around this is to rewrite the envelope.
This is
Title: Message
Hi,
Does Declude
correctly interprete the SPF records published by
Hotmail/MSN?
E.g., currently we
publish something like this...
v=spf1 mx ip4:216.124.168.0/28include:webhost.hm-software.com
-all
but the new format
would look like that:
spf2.0/pra mx
Does Declude correctly interprete the SPF records published by Hotmail/MSN?
E.g., currently we publish something like this...
v=spf1 mx ip4:216.124.168.0/28 include:webhost.hm-software.com -all
but the new format would look like that:
spf2.0/pra mx ip4:216.124.168.0/28
Message- Original Message -
From: Andy Schmidt
I have been contacted by several clients who want SenderID
information added to their DNS. If that's representative, then the
adoption rate should skyrocket next month, and I sure would
like to benefit from it! If do have a maintenance
Hi Scott:
I wonder if others on this list have seen inquiries from their hosting
customers indicating that there will be some good number of domains who will
support it.
Besides I have seen Declude jump on some pretty irrelevant proposals in
the last year. Compared to that SenderID will be
competing standards that are not so encumbered by patents and licenses
as SenderID is?
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Andy Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 10:55 AM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF 2.0 ?
Hi,
Nope, they don't read Apache
- Original Message -
Correct. But there are also the patent issues, and the muckiness of it
all (I'm having troubles even finding an official Microsoft document that
documents this new Sender-ID).
Here you go:
Sender ID (Published: June 23, 2004 | Updated: July 12, 2004)
Hi Scott:
But how are they hearing about the Sender-ID records in the first
place? Virtually everything points to real SPF.
Apparently, Microsoft has been promoting SenderID to email mailing houses
(see: http://www.exacttarget.com/) and to their network of Microsoft
Partners, who in turn are
1 - 100 of 277 matches
Mail list logo
