Tyran Ormond wrote:
That still means that I have to setup includes for each of the
possible sending domains, still unacceptable and reason enough for me
to discard SPF completely.
Well be advised not all your mail will get delivered. I have some
insurance agencies whose mail will bounce if
t at your discretion.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: "Tyran Ormond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPFPass - good or bad?
On 10:32 AM 9/8/2005 -0400, it would appear that Darin Cox wrote:
>Regarding
On 10:32 AM 9/8/2005 -0400, it would appear that Darin Cox wrote:
Regarding the situation you outlined, SPF can be easily configured to
specify the server that mail is forced through as the sending server. SPF
records can also be designed to inherit other SPF records, so if an ISP has
SPF define
ecify all of
the ISPs sending servers.
So, the example you gave is incomplete and can easily be handled by SPF.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: "Tyran Ormond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPFPass - go
rsday, September 08, 2005 09:59 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPFPass - good or bad?
On 09:01 AM 9/8/2005 -0400, it would appear that Darin Cox wrote:
>Be careful of using spfpass. Spammers can use SPF, too!
>
>We do not give any credit for passing
On 09:01 AM 9/8/2005 -0400, it would appear that Darin Cox wrote:
Be careful of using spfpass. Spammers can use SPF, too!
We do not give any credit for passing SPF, only a penalty for failing
which too many email admins set up but allow their networks to send email
from machines not listed
Looking at the last 80.000 messages on our Mailserver SPFPASS has had a
positive result on 11%
Following the final weight after all spam tests 7 from this 11% was right.
The other 4% was a wrong result.
SPFFAIL will only catch around 1% of all processed messages. Nearly all of
the catched right a
-
From: "Nick Hayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPFPass - good or bad?
Hi David -
I like the spfpass test - coupled with filters it does help aginst false
positives.
[I prepend all my tests with the test type - t
David,
Since the start of SPF I have seen a steady adoption of SPF by spammers.
Their really is nothing that stops them from using it. My suggestion is not
applying negative weight for SPFPASS.
Darrell
---
invURIBL - Intelligent URI Filtering. Stops 8
Hi David -
I like the spfpass test - coupled with filters it does help aginst false
positives.
[I prepend all my tests with the test type - thanks Kami! - it makes
these filters easier to write -]
Here is my spfgood filter - I score it with a -12:
SKIPIFWEIGHT26
TESTSFAILEDENDNOT
I use SPFFail to add weight to test to a message, but like you I have
also seen spammers creating SPF records, which in turn allows them to
get lower score with SPFPass. As a result, we no long find that SPFPass
is a useful in detecting spam.
David Kornitz / Cornerstone Computer Solutions, Inc
We only use SPFFAIL and add weight. We stay away from negative weighting.
SPFPASS just means that the senderdomain is coming from an approved mail
server.
Kevin Bilbee
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Dodell
> Sent: Wednesday,
12 matches
Mail list logo
