Am 11.07.2012 21:34, schrieb Josef Karliak:
Good evening,
within a few days we've spams from domains that has +all in the TXT
spf record. I was thinking that I'll make a plugin that check this
records and add some point to this email, but I do not know perl. Are
there some other options ?
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:50:59 +0200
Robert Schetterer rob...@schetterer.org wrote:
spf does not solve spam problems in general, its may only one from
many parameters for spam tagging check
Indeed. I *never* subtract points for an SPF pass except for a very
few select domains that I trust. I
On 07/12/2012 09:01 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:50:59 +0200
Robert Schetterer rob...@schetterer.org wrote:
spf does not solve spam problems in general, its may only one from
many parameters for spam tagging check
Indeed. I *never* subtract points for an SPF pass except
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:08:19 +0200
Andrzej A. Filip andrzej.fi...@gmail.com wrote:
Would you suggest/recommend using spf-bayes?
[auto-learning of worth of given domain SPF record]
That is an interesting idea... store tokens like:
example.com*spf-pass
and compute probabilities.
A while
Am 12.07.2012 09:08, schrieb Andrzej A. Filip:
On 07/12/2012 09:01 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:50:59 +0200
Robert Schetterer rob...@schetterer.org wrote:
spf does not solve spam problems in general, its may only one from
many parameters for spam tagging check
Indeed. I
Hi everybody,
thanks for answers.
Many of the spamming domains has a TXT record:
v=spf1 +all.
Or the name record types and at the end of the record they put
+all anyway. So I can send spam by theirs domain, I'm authorized by
this record. That is wrong. Ok, not everyone uses only
On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 03:20 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:08:19 +0200
Andrzej A. Filip andrzej.fi...@gmail.com wrote:
Would you suggest/recommend using spf-bayes?
[auto-learning of worth of given domain SPF record]
That is an interesting idea... store tokens like:
Den 2012-07-12 09:33, Josef Karliak skrev:
v=spf1 +all.
if i find a domain with just that i perm reject this domain in mta
without spf testing
I tried META ... mentioned in some post, I'll see.
maybe it helps spammers ? :=)
if its your own domain as sender one could ask sender for
Den 2012-07-12 08:50, Robert Schetterer skrev:
i wouldnt invest time in it
spf does not solve spam problems in general, its may only one from
many
parameters for spam tagging check
currect
any spammer can have valid spf records, also strict ones
also any legal mail sender
currect
in
Den 2012-07-12 09:20, David F. Skoll skrev:
it's still the case because SPF is now more widely adopted than
before. (Spammers tend to be early adopters of technology.)
thay are properly implementing dmarc into spamassassin right now :)
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:50:59 +0200
Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 11.07.2012 21:34, schrieb Josef Karliak:
Good evening,
within a few days we've spams from domains that has +all in the
TXT spf record. I was thinking that I'll make a plugin that check
this records and add some point to
On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 13:35 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Den 2012-07-12 09:33, Josef Karliak skrev:
v=spf1 +all.
if i find a domain with just that i perm reject this domain in mta
without spf testing
That sounds like a good idea. Can the SPF plugin recognise overly
permissive
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Martin Gregorie wrote:
I'd suggest that any SPF record containing '+all' and possibly '?all'
too, should trigger an SPF_PERMISSIVE rule rather than SPF_PASS so we
can distinguish an authorised server in a tightly controlled domain from
servers claiming to be part of a
Em Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:22:49 -0400
dar...@chaosreigns.com escreveu:
On 07/11, Josef Karliak wrote:
within a few days we've spams from domains that has +all in the
TXT spf record. I was thinking that I'll make a plugin that check
this records and add some point to this email, but I do not
On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 12:17 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Martin Gregorie wrote:
I'd suggest that any SPF record containing '+all' and possibly '?all'
too, should trigger an SPF_PERMISSIVE rule rather than SPF_PASS so we
can distinguish an authorised server in a tightly
Hello,
Starting this morning (USA time), around 20 spam messages have made it
to my inbox due to errors in my spamassassin executions:
-=-=-
Timeout::_run: check: no loaded plugin implements 'check_main': cannot scan!
Check the necessary '.pre' files are in the config directory. at
16 matches
Mail list logo
