On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Kelson Vibber wrote:
Sure, PGP and S/MIME are probably more elegant solutions. But if you think
it's hard getting mail server admins to agree on and implement something like
SPF, just try convincing every man, woman and child on the Internet to
digitally sign every piece
On 13 Aug 2004 at 8:41, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
It's an optional part of SMTP that doesn't have to be supported, and
does have some security issues.
Which ones?
It simply triggers a queue run filtering mail for a target server.
Depending on the ability of your sendmail installation to
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Cor Bosman wrote:
I mean, one of your customers (employees, whatever) sending email through
your server using [EMAIL PROTECTED] (basically their own hotmail
account).
They can in the From: header, but in the envelope your MTA is to ensure
that DSNs have a valid return
This is not true. Im not sure how many 'most' ISPs you are talking
about, but I know quite a few ISPs that accept all email for a
domain and forward to a customer. This is most prevalent in
dialup/isdn situations where you basically 'store and forward' all
email for customers that are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 08/12/2004 04:20:31
AM:
And what do you think the command ETRN is for? One could give these
hosts
a lower MX, but on the other hand, if they're almost never online you'd
have
to wonder if thats a good thing.
ETRN requires the queueing MX to be able to resolve
At 06:27 PM 8/11/2004, Jeff Rife wrote:
it is the responsibility of the MX machine to know what is and is not
deliverable.
Again, this completely solves the issue of forged return address bounce
e-mails.
Actually, no it doesn't.
Let's try another ISP-as-MX scenario, this time where the company
Kelson Vibber wrote:
At 06:27 PM 8/11/2004, Jeff Rife wrote:
it is the responsibility of the MX machine to know what is and is
not deliverable.
Again, this completely solves the issue of forged return address
bounce e-mails.
Actually, no it doesn't.
Let's try another ISP-as-MX
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 08/12/2004 01:55:55
PM:
But accept-everything-and-send-manual-undeliverable-reports-later is
becoming less and less acceptable of a strategy.
Hear! Hear!!
I looked at a number of spam filters that did this before I came across
MIMEDefang (and CanIT Pro which we
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But accept-everything-and-send-manual-undeliverable-reports-later is
becoming less and less acceptable of a strategy.
I concur. I suspect ISPs will find it less and less attractive to
offer backup MX services, and will either get out of that
Again, this completely solves the issue of forged return address
bounce e-mails.
Actually, no it doesn't.
Let's try another ISP-as-MX scenario, this time where the company runs its
own mail server as primary MX, but uses the ISP's server as a secondary:
Whoa... stop right
]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:mimedefang-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David F. Skoll
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 2:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Mimedefang] Deadline for SPF records *long w/morbid
horoscope*
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 [EMAIL
Kelson Vibber wrote:
Bad recipients are NOT the only problem!
I agree. Rejecting-bad-emails-at-the-gateway is a Good Idea (tm), but it doesn't
solve everything.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com Software Engineer
perl
On 12 Aug 2004 at 10:20, Cor Bosman wrote:
In any case, this is in reality no different from a client calling up
and getting the mail from a server. Because the ISP is the only MX, it
should know about all the deliverable addresses, simply to avoid
dictionary e-mailings to these
On 12 Aug 2004 at 10:14, Kelson Vibber wrote:
1. Spammer targets the backup MX (us), assuming it's less protected.
2. We queue, reject, or discard the message.
3. Mail ends up at customer's primary mail server, which rejects *on
different criteria*.
4. Customer's server issues an SMTP
On 12 Aug 2004 at 12:33, Kelson Vibber wrote:
- Some of those criteria (such as spam filters) are hard to keep in sync
across multiple implementations.
Spam isn't really a big deal in the bounce area.
For us, once it hits analysis (SpamAssassin through MIMEDefang), we
never send anything
On 10 Aug 2004 at 14:29, Ben Kamen wrote:
If your ISP allows you to have mail servers behind theirs and they are
the front line MX and forward everything to you, then your ISP is
really odd.
This is not odd at all.
I concur.
This is not odd at all and is actually the goal of
If your ISP allows you to have mail servers behind theirs and they are
the front line MX and forward everything to you, then your ISP is
really odd.
This is not odd at all.
Now, for *real* ISPs (like, say Comcast, who provide both connectivity
*and* service), most also
Ben Kamen wrote:
...snip...
But seriously, it's so easy to set up StartTLS on the client side...
you know, you would think that... but, as an example, Microsoft
Entourage (part of Office 2000) for OS X doesn't support STARTTLS, only
SSMTP. sure you can use SMTP AUTH, but you'd have to configure
--On Tuesday, August 10, 2004 3:21 PM -0500 Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 14:10, Richard Laager wrote:
If a potential customer sends you a message through a public access
point and their domain has SPF enabled and doesn't list that access
point as a valid relay, is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brenden Conte wrote:
| On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 13:55, Daniel Taylor wrote:
|
| snip
|
| Say your potential client sends the same e-mail from the same location
| and your spam filter sidelines it because it triggered a couple minor
| SA rules and was from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Les Mikesell wrote:
| On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 14:10, Richard Laager wrote:
|
|
|If a potential customer sends you a message through a public access
|point and their domain has SPF enabled and doesn't list that access
|point as a valid relay, is that you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
alan premselaar wrote:
| as an ISP, you can't be platform biased either. you have to take into
| account every possible mail client that anyone using your servers may
| attempt to use. like it or not.
|
You are correct Alan, ISP's will have the
- Original Message -
From: David F. Skoll [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Mimedefang] Deadline for SPF records
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Dave Williss wrote:
You mean like an employee on the road using a hotel's ISP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Les Mikesell wrote:
| On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 12:55, Daniel Taylor wrote:
|
|
|Say your potential client sends the same e-mail from the same location
|and your spam filter sidelines it because it triggered a couple minor
|SA rules and was from a
- Original Message -
From: Cor Bosman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Mimedefang] Deadline for SPF records
Let's say that I work for a hypothetical ACME Widgets, Inc. My e-mail
address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] A potential
Let's say that I work for a hypothetical ACME Widgets, Inc. My e-mail
address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] A potential customer,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], tries to send me an e-mail message from his laptop
using a public access point in his hotel. The network he's on is not
listed as an allowed
On Wed, 2004-08-11 at 10:38, Daniel Taylor wrote:
As the recipient it is your choice.
I would also note that if you are philosophically opposed to rejecting
e-mail messages you can have your SPF filter operate in Tag-only mode.
But then how does the sender ever learn that his domain is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Les Mikesell wrote:
| On Wed, 2004-08-11 at 10:38, Daniel Taylor wrote:
|
|
|As the recipient it is your choice.
|I would also note that if you are philosophically opposed to rejecting
|e-mail messages you can have your SPF filter operate in Tag-only
Let's say that the SPF record for futuresource.com says that the
allowed relay is mail.futuresource.com. This means that mail coming
from mail.futuresource.com (as the relay) is legitimate and that all
other mail is likely to be forged. Now, why would
mail.futuresource.com allow someone to
-Original Message-
From: Lucas Albers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I tried to get read the ldap address book entries from my internal
exchange server (5.5) but I could never get it to work.
I couldn't justify the effort as I'm don't really see it as a
big deal at
this point.
I'm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David F. Skoll wrote:
| On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Daniel Taylor wrote:
|
|
|All SPF-Pass means is that the e-mail came from an authorized
|sender for the domain in question.
|
|
| Right. SPF is *not* an anti-spam technology.
|
Oh no, not again. This is why
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 06:44:43 -0500
Damrose, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exchange 5.5 is a tough nut. That's what I have.
Under the default lookup, you can only search on a primary e-mail
address. All of my users have @elgin.edu addresses, but many of
them also have @elgin.cc.il.us
--On Monday, August 9, 2004 11:17 PM -0400 Jeff Rife [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
At the core, this solution ignores the concept and purpose of a backup MX
which is a reality and necessity for many companies where email is
critical.
I dispute this statement. If the MX host is configured
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 11:17:41PM -0400, Jeff Rife wrote:
On 9 Aug 2004 at 21:03, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
If the receiving MX servers always knew all valid recipient addresses
*at (E)SMTP connection time*, then there would be no bounces...only
rejections.
This solves the problem
-Original Message-
From: Peter A. Cole [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In Exchange 5.5, probably the easiest way would be to export
your Directory Store as a csv file. In Exchange
Administrator, go to Tools then Directory Export. You can
select all items including mailboxes, custom
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:59:56 -0500
Damrose, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but you can't get all the deliverable addresses - e.g.
system addresses such as postmaster and abuse. I also don't know
of any way to do this automatically. I really don't want this to
be a manual process, and I
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 06:44:43AM -0500, Damrose, Mark wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Lucas Albers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I tried to get read the ldap address book entries from my internal
exchange server (5.5) but I could never get it to work.
I couldn't justify the
- Original Message -
From: Cor Bosman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 4:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Mimedefang] Deadline for SPF records
Let's say that the SPF record for futuresource.com says that the
allowed relay is mail.futuresource.com
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:26:26AM -0400, Graham Dunn wrote:
http://pochacco.dnsalias.net/~gdunn/extract-exchange-55-20040810.tar.gz
Forgot to add that you'll need to add whatever you have in @mx_domains
to your relay-domains file.
Graham
___
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Dave Williss wrote:
You mean like an employee on the road using a hotel's ISP or at a
wireless hotspot connecting back to your mail server to send mail
as from your company? _Make_ them use authentication.
Ironically enough, Dave Williss's original message was held in
On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 09:12, Dave Williss wrote:
You mean like an employee on the road using a hotel's ISP or at a
wireless hotspot connecting back to your mail server to send mail
as from your company? _Make_ them use authentication.
Put a price tag on that. If you are selling a product,
On 10 Aug 2004 at 7:59, Damrose, Mark wrote:
Yes, but you can't get all the deliverable addresses - e.g.
system addresses such as postmaster and abuse.
Those could be added manually to the list after the export.
I also don't know
of any way to
On 10 Aug 2004 at 9:00, Joseph Brennan wrote:
--On Monday, August 9, 2004 11:17 PM -0400 Jeff Rife [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
At the core, this solution ignores the concept and purpose of a backup MX
which is a reality and necessity for many companies where email is
critical.
I
On 10 Aug 2004 at 9:04, Graham Dunn wrote:
There is no reason a backup MX server can't know if an address is valid
or not.
How about scaling? I'm pretty sure my ISP will run (screaming, no
doubt), from a scenario in which they rely on their customers to keep
their list of valid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Les Mikesell wrote:
| On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 09:12, Dave Williss wrote:
|
|
|You mean like an employee on the road using a hotel's ISP or at a
|wireless hotspot connecting back to your mail server to send mail
|as from your company? _Make_ them use
How about scaling? I'm pretty sure my ISP will run (screaming, no
doubt), from a scenario in which they rely on their customers to keep
their list of valid addresses current.
If your ISP allows you to have mail servers behind theirs and they are
the front line MX and forward everything
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Put a price tag on that. If you are selling a product, how many
dollars worth of orders are you willing to discard because the
potential customer sent a request for information through a
public access point instead of their own ISP?
If a
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Richard Laager wrote:
If a potential customer sends you a message through a public access
point and their domain has SPF enabled and doesn't list that access
point as a valid relay, is that you fault? No, it's their
administrator's fault for setting up restrictive SPF
Cor Bosman wrote:
How about scaling? I'm pretty sure my ISP will run (screaming, no
doubt), from a scenario in which they rely on their customers to keep
their list of valid addresses current.
If your ISP allows you to have mail servers behind theirs and they are
the front line MX and forward
Richard Laager wrote:
Example:
Let's say that I work for a hypothetical ACME Widgets, Inc. My e-mail
address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] A potential customer,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], tries to send me an e-mail message from his laptop
using a public access point in his hotel. The network he's on is not
listed
Let's say that I work for a hypothetical ACME Widgets, Inc. My e-mail
address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] A potential customer,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], tries to send me an e-mail message from his laptop
using a public access point in his hotel. The network he's on is not
listed as an allowed relay for
On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 14:10, Richard Laager wrote:
If a potential customer sends you a message through a public access
point and their domain has SPF enabled and doesn't list that access
point as a valid relay, is that you fault? No, it's their
administrator's fault for setting up restrictive
Er, oo... Well, in that case, let me introduce you to Mr. Reply-To: field.
chuckle
Can't help ya there.. that is a problem. But the reply-to: would fix that.
:)
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 14:10, Richard Laager wrote:
If a potential customer sends you a message through a public
Cor Bosman wrote:
That's just it - if your sales guy is at hotel with his laptop, he could
use AUTH/STARTTLS and actually relay through his company's mail server.
Thus the email from [EMAIL PROTECTED] would be delivered by
mail.acmewidgets.com to where it needed to go... SPF would be valid.
Quoting Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 14:10, Richard Laager wrote:
If a potential customer sends you a message through a public access
point and their domain has SPF enabled and doesn't list that access
point as a valid relay, is that you fault? No, it's their
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Joseph Brennan wrote:
What is recommended for things like send this page to a friend, where
the initiator wants to be able to have a remote machine send on his
behalf despite an SPF to the contrary? MAIL FROM: From:? From:
Sender:? From: Reply-To:?
The SPF advocates say
--On Monday, August 9, 2004 8:52 AM -0400 David F. Skoll
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MAIL FROM:[EMAIL PROTECTED] RESPONSIBLE=[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and the argument of the RESPONSIBLE parameter would be used for
SPF checking.
Good point about lists. Then again referrals would make it really
cheap
Joseph Brennan wrote:
So, all we do is change all the mail servers on the net. :-)
Now you're getting the idea :-)
Revolution begins at home.
Cheers
Bill
___
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca
MIMEDefang mailing list
[EMAIL
At 06:21 AM 8/9/2004, Joseph Brennan wrote:
Bounces would go straight to the FROM, I assume?
So, all we do is change all the mail servers on the net. :-)
Hey, most* people stopped running open relays, right?
Change IS possible. It's likely to be painful, but it's possible.
* Yes, there are still
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 10:47, Dave Williss wrote:
So back to the postal analogy, you'd could drop a letter in your own
mailbox from anywhere in the world as long as you had the key.
Although, if the authentication is done by password sent in clear text, I
don't think I would like that option.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Les Mikesell wrote:
| On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 10:47, Dave Williss wrote:
|
|
|So back to the postal analogy, you'd could drop a letter in your own
|mailbox from anywhere in the world as long as you had the key.
|Although, if the authentication is done
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Daniel Taylor wrote:
All SPF-Pass means is that the e-mail came from an authorized
sender for the domain in question.
Right. SPF is *not* an anti-spam technology.
What SPF is good for is stopping bounces from joe-jobs. We get
hundreds of bounces a day because people fake
At 12:42 PM 8/9/2004, David F. Skoll wrote:
So SPF is a good technology to combat joe-jobs providing everyone in
the Internet uses it. :-( See
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html
To be fair, SPF has never pushed itself (to my knowledge) as the FUSSP.
Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 15:54, Kelson Vibber wrote:
At 01:17 PM 8/9/2004, Les Mikesell wrote:
So SPF is going to be painful until everyone uses it and then
it still won't solve the real problem.
Floods of invalid bounces from forged addresses aren't a problem?
It's not
At 04:12 PM 8/9/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that invalid bounces from forged addresses aren't really a blip
on the scale of email problems. Also they can easily be solved using
existing technology - just have every organization push their valid
user list to the mail servers on their
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Can't
someone still forge the user name as long as the domain
name is correct for the originating IP address or will that
take yet another change in all MTA's to enforce before this
one is very useful?
Let's say that the SPF record for
Re: SPF Solving Invalid Bounces
I thought about the statement below a lot because it seemed correct at first
that pushing valid emails to all the gateways would solve the issue.
However, the more I thought about it, invalid bounces are a big problems and
SPF is a reasonable solution to start
On 9 Aug 2004 at 20:21, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I thought about the statement below a lot because it seemed correct at first
that pushing valid emails to all the gateways would solve the issue.
However, the more I thought about it, invalid bounces are a big problems and
SPF is a reasonable
If the receiving MX servers always knew all valid recipient addresses
*at (E)SMTP connection time*, then there would be no bounces...only
rejections.
This solves the problem without introducing anything new to (E)SMTP.
At the core, this solution ignores the concept and purpose of a backup MX
On 9 Aug 2004 at 21:03, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
If the receiving MX servers always knew all valid recipient addresses
*at (E)SMTP connection time*, then there would be no bounces...only
rejections.
This solves the problem without introducing anything new to (E)SMTP.
At the core, this
Joseph Brennan wrote:
One was from our user on a Verizon dialup where he was required
to send through Verizon's smtp server. He reported port 587 was
blocked so he could not do smtp auth to our server. This has
not been confirmed.
Verizon does do some funky things to try to insure that their
Dave O'Neill said:
According to a thread on the spf-discuss list, Microsoft has announced
that they'll start checking SPF records at hotmail.com, msn.com, and
microsoft.com on October 1, 2004. That's the only deadline I've heard
of.
But when are the big guys yahoo|earthlink|hotmail|msn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 08/05/2004 12:52:10
PM:
But when are the big guys yahoo|earthlink|hotmail|msn going to implement
SPF
entries for their mail servers?
Good point. Of all of the above, only AOL has any TXT records in DNS.
aol.com text = v=spf1 ip4:152.163.225.0/24
We published SPF a month ago for columbia.edu and found a handful of
systems in Europe rejecting mail with it! We changed it to ~all in
an attempt to tell those guys it's not required yet.
Joseph Brennan
Academic Technologies Group, Academic Information Systems (AcIS)
Columbia University in the
Joseph Brennan wrote:
We published SPF a month ago for columbia.edu and found a handful of
systems in Europe rejecting mail with it! We changed it to ~all in
an attempt to tell those guys it's not required yet.
So... someone was sending mail as
From: columbia.edu
To: someone in Europe
Wouldn't that be funny that everyone started rejecting mail from them because
they didn't do that. Yet, they pushed for the deadline for everyone else to
have SPF published? Hahaha...
Well, a quick check shows:
MSN:NO
Hotmail:NO
Yahoo: NO
AOL:YES
--On Thursday, August 5, 2004 11:37 AM -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Joseph Brennan wrote:
We published SPF a month ago for columbia.edu and found a handful of
systems in Europe rejecting mail with it! We changed it to ~all in
an attempt to tell those guys it's not required yet.
So... someone
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thread drift:
Does anyone know if xyz.acme.com can have a different SPF record from
abc.acme.com?
Yes.
Or would they all fall under one acme.com SPF
record?
No.
What
if qrz.acme.com does not have a
Thread drift:
Does anyone know if xyz.acme.com can have a different SPF record from
abc.acme.com? Or would they all fall under one acme.com SPF record? What
if qrz.acme.com does not have a record, would the get the acme.com record?
___
Visit
You can set it so anything that resolves to the parent domain is good... OR you
can be as specific as abc is ok, but qrz is not.
You get to choose...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thread drift:
Does anyone know if xyz.acme.com can have a different SPF record from
abc.acme.com? Or would they all
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 08/05/2004 03:28:02
PM:
From http://spf.pobox.com/faq.html#allsmtp
Thanks for the info and link to the FAQ. I guess I should have started
there.
___
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca
MIMEDefang
--On Thursday, August 5, 2004 3:32 PM -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thread drift:
Does anyone know if xyz.acme.com can have a different SPF record from
abc.acme.com? Or would they all fall under one acme.com SPF record?
What if qrz.acme.com does not have a record, would the get the acme.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A collegue has heard that there is an October 1, 2004 for
implementing SPF
records. He got this from looking at a report from
http://http://www.dnsreport.com Their message states:
dnsreport.com is a nice
Seems to be the deadline date I keep hearing because that's when
Microsoft will start checking SPF.
Microsoft to enforce Sender ID checks
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/07/22/HNmicrosoftid_1.html
http://www.DNSreport.com now gives a warning if your domain doesn't have
SPF.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[quote]
Your domain does not have an SPF record. This means that spammers can
easily send out E-mail that looks like it came from your domain, which can
make your domain look bad (if the recipient thinks you really sent it),
and can cost you money (when people complain
Seems to be the deadline date I keep hearing because that's when
Microsoft will start checking SPF.
Microsoft to enforce Sender ID checks
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/07/22/HNmicrosoftid_1.html
http://www.DNSreport.com now gives a warning if your domain doesn't have
SPF.
I wonder
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 08/04/2004 10:30:21
AM:
I have not heard of the October 1 date. As far as I can see
http://spf.pobox.com does not mention this, and none of the
RFC drafts do either.
Hmmm. Followed a bunch of the links, and found:
Sorry for top posting.
Yes this is correct and AOL will be starting to evaluate SPF records
possibly by the end of this month. Some sites in Europe are already making
decisions based on SPF records as well (jumping the gun a bit, but it's
their network).
And Remember Microsoft will be looking at
I will be visiting MS next week, maybe I can provide further information
after that meeting
Make sure to wear a rain coat! (and not because you're going to Washington
State... more like BS-Deflection-wear)...
:)
-Ben
___
Visit
89 matches
Mail list logo
