: 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
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 email from home using their local ISP... etc.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
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!
Only SPFFAIL is recommended, as spammers may have SPF records. Also, since
many organizations are not using SPF, SPFUNKNOWN is not useful.
Here's how you declare it in your GLOBAL.CFG
SPFFAILspffailxput your test weight here0
I find that SPF is very useful, if for no other
Until IPswitch offers SPF checking during the connection
(where it really belongs), I can't see any benefit of doing that in
Imail.
Might as well let Declude handle it all and make it part of
your weighting scheme.
Best
RegardsAndy SchmidtPhone: +1 201 934-3414 x20
(Business)Fax: +1 201
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
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 will be returned on a soft fail or no SPF record
present.
So you
, 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
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 -
From: Gary Steiner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
: [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
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,
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:
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
I think the underlying problem as has been discussed on this list is that an
SPF FAIL should not be relied upon as an outright rejection, rather used as
part of a weighting system.
John T
eServices For You
Seek, and ye shall find!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
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@Adelphia.net send an email to
user@greenmountainhealth.com which is an alias
Real-world issues include working around bad implementation, such as
surfglobal.net not configuring their server to reject messages that
fail SPF.
SPF has many real-world issues. SRS is novel, but it is impractical
since no one supports it (that I am aware of), and it certainly won't
be
Nick,
What I've done, and I can't be sure its working, is to set up my client's
SPF records like this:
v=spf1 ip4:[my ip mx range] ip4:[client ip mx range] mx ~all
The range format is nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn/nn
I haven't had complaints about SPF rejects.
George
-Original Message-
From:
@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
Karl, the correct format is as below:
SPFPASSspfpassx00SPFFAILspffailx50
Note that nobody usesSPFPASS to grant a negative
weight to an incoming message. This is because a certain family of the bad
guysdefinitely use SPF and their own mail servers, and we don't want to
help them.
The best
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
thoughts.
thanks
John
-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
Karl,
The correct format is
SPFFAIL
spf fail x
7 0
DarrellinvURIBL
- Intelligent URI filtering plug-in for Declude, mxGuard, and ORF. Stop
spam at the source the spamvertised domain. More effective than
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.
---
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
.
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
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 the destination address as the from address is
Title: 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.
- Original Message -
From: Agid, Corby
To: [EMAIL
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
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
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
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.
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.
This is
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
Hi Bill,
Again, my opinion is not what matters. I understand your arguments.
I can only go by what my clients do and the trend that I see develop. Two
large domains will implement it, apparently other large organizations will
add SPF2.0 TXT records just in case. After all, it does no harm - so
Bill,
I'm well aware of the disputes. But my level of knowledge doesn't make a
difference. I'd like to check other people's SPF2 records, no matter how I
feel about the whole issue.
This is not the time for my personal preference to override what's clearly
best for my mail server. If others
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).
Scott, have you looked at this
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/privacy/spam_senderid.mspx
It seems to have what
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).
Scott, have you looked at this
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/privacy/spam_senderid.mspx
It seems to have
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 11:07 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF 2.0 ?
Good luck trying to rally support around this one. If the open source
community is not going to support it, and none of Microsoft's competitors
(Yahoo, AOL, GMail, etc
Could help notice Microsoft states The Sender ID Framework is an
industry standard.
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/privacy/spam_senderid.mspx
Michael Jaworski
Puget Sound Network, Inc.
(206) 217-0400
(800) 599-9485
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
protection and response), but their implementation of it is poor.
Andrew 8)
-Original Message-
From: Andy Schmidt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 11:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF 2.0 ?
Hi Bill,
Again, my opinion is not what
Colbeck, Andrew wrote:
This is because they publish MX records for hosts that are up, but not
accepting mail. IMail then thinks it's a great idea to try to send to that
host 10 minutes later. And again. And again.
I believe if you turn off DNS Caching and Failed Domain Skipping in the
Queue
Does anyone know if setting up SPF for a primary domain would affect
virtual domains that shares it's IP in Imail? Will the virtual domains
start to fail SPF tests because the IP that they are bound to in DNS
lists only the primary domain's name in the SPF record. Will I be
forced to setup SPF
Does anyone know if setting up SPF for a primary domain would affect
virtual domains that shares it's IP in Imail?
It will not affect them--which is both good and bad. If a domain
doesn't have an SPF record, it will be rejected or negatively weighted
by remote servers that _require_ SPF
Great! I figured that I would need to do it eventually, but I would
rather do it in stages and not all at once.
Dean
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:11:45 -0400, Sanford Whiteman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know if setting up SPF for a primary domain would affect
virtual domains that shares
My problem is, while I do get several successful pass results, I have yet
to get a fail result. How exactly is this test carried out? Is it checking
for the validity of the SPF record, and if one does not exist, the test is
skipped?
It uses the SPF protocol. It looks like you do have the test
Syntax looks correct. Fail looks at the SPF record for the domain being
checked and if it says mail should not be sent from that domains from the
mail server in question, then the test will fail. For the case where the
domain does not have an SPF record, the test would return Unknown. If you
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darin Cox
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 8:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF tests not working right?
Syntax looks correct. Fail looks at the SPF record for the domain being
checked and if it says mail should
Yes. One of the flaws of SPF. However, you can also use a weaker SPF
record that says basically that you don't know what mail server it is coming
from. Not much point in that except to say that you're using SPF, though I
suppose it might be possible that a particular mail admin might penalize
Saturday, September 11, 2004, 7:37:21 AM, Darin Cox wrote:
For your hotel situation, you might try setting your mail server to accept
SMTP AUTH traffic on port 587. That way if 25 is blocked but 587 is open
you can continue to use your mail server.
I thought Imail only has the capability of
- Original Message -
From: David Dodell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For your hotel situation, you might try setting your mail server to
accept
SMTP AUTH traffic on port 587. That way if 25 is blocked but 587 is
open
you can continue to use your mail server.
I thought Imail only has the
I believe that SPF is almost all hype and hardly any value to speak of.
It was originally intended to authenticate hosts, but spammers quickly
caught on and started giving themselves SPF records (
http://netscape.com.com/2100-1009_22-5357269.html?part=netscapesubj=technewstag=mynetscape
). I
I believe that SPF is almost all hype and hardly any value to speak of.
I think this is a bit harsh. While SPF is certainly not the answer to all of
my prayers, it has some value.
It was originally intended to authenticate hosts, but spammers quickly
caught on and started giving
and used, this is an indispensable test.
While I wish SPF Pass was worthwhile as well, I'll
take what good I can get out of it.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Matt
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF Records and Off-Network
If you are using smtp auth, then Imail will EHLO with the virtual domain,
When not using auth, Imail will EHLO with the primary domain.
Since you cannot should not prevent users from using auth, then you need
to set SPFs for all virtual domains.
- Original Message -
From: Dan Horne
If I have one IP-ful domain (the primary domain of the mail server,
taisweb.net), and many virtual hosts, do I need an SPF record for all the
domains, or just for taisweb.net?
You need them for all.
Why? Let's say that the one of the virtual domains is example.com. When
someone sends an E-mail
Ah, thanks Scott and Serge.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 10:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF for virtuals?
If I have one IP-ful domain (the primary domain
I decided to put in an SPF record, but DNSREport still shows it as
not being there.
stat.com
has a SPF record of:
v=spf1 -all
Isn't this just a TXT record, or did I miss something?
The problem is that your SPF record has the quotes in it, but it should not.
If you go to
We virtual host (as well as store/forward) for a lot of domains. It is
a given to add SPF support, I need to setup records for the main IP and
name of our servers. However, what about all the virtuals?
SPF doesn't know or care whether a domain is virtual or real. So:
Do I only need to setup
Scott,
Awesome, thanks for the aid.
Keith
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 1:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF Setup
We virtual host (as well as store
- Original Message -
From: John Shacklett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Has anyone tried to construct dummy SPF records locally for domains that
are
not your own in order to outsmart SPF records in the real world that
permit
spammers junk to pass?
Would not work unless you are listed as the
Weird posting to yourself but figured it may be good for the archives for
anyone in the same boat. I never did get a response from anyone on the list
and frankly knew was asking a lot for folks to digest on a busy Monday
morning. Anyway, I got all the SPF set-up and the wizard figured out for our
Thanks to Darin and Sandy.
-d
- Original Message -
From: Darin Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF Issues
I believe the consensus has been that SPF Pass is not good to use in
negative weighting, but SPF
1 - 100 of 214 matches
Mail list logo
