I figured out a way to get the spamd user to scan the spam folders. Definitely
helping.
applying email in the inbox that have been read to the HAM is next on the list.
> On Oct 20, 2015, at 9:39 AM, RW wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 08:29:27 -0500
> Ryan Coleman wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Oct 20, 2
On Oct 21, 2015, at 7:34 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> I want to run the samples you provided and see if I can duplicate the issue
> but it definitely sounds odd.
I've got four more of them, if you want. (Includes a reply to one of the
spamples, a separate two-message thread, and another sing
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 00:59:04 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> so *read* what i refer to and read it really
> YOU SET THE SPF AS ANY OTHER RECORD TYPE FOR A CNAME IMPLICITLY BY DO
> THAT FOR THE A-RECORD THE CNAME IS POINTING TO
You don't need to yell.
A CNAME does not point to an A record.
Regard
I want to run the samples you provided and see if I can duplicate the issue but
it definitely sounds odd.
Regards,
KAM
On October 20, 2015 11:39:36 AM PDT, Amir Caspi wrote:
>On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:16 PM, RW wrote:
>
>> body URI_HOST_IN_BLACKLISTeval:check_uri_host_in_blacklist()
>> header
Am 22.10.2015 um 00:19 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 22.10.2015 um 00:08 schrieb Bill Cole:
On 21 Oct 2015, at 13:48, btb wrote:
are spf records allowed to be a cname?
I can't see any reason why they shouldn't be...
e.g.:
http://dpaste.com/0MR0R3C.txt
is this explicitly addressed in an rf
Am 22.10.2015 um 00:26 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 00:19:05 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
no it should NOT
otherwise you would not be able to set a SPF-record for your CNAMES
You can't do that anyway. If a domain has a CNAME record, it MUST NOT
have any other records of any
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 00:19:05 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> no it should NOT
> otherwise you would not be able to set a SPF-record for your CNAMES
You can't do that anyway. If a domain has a CNAME record, it MUST NOT
have any other records of any other type whatsoever. So there's no way
to set
Am 22.10.2015 um 00:08 schrieb Bill Cole:
On 21 Oct 2015, at 13:48, btb wrote:
are spf records allowed to be a cname?
I can't see any reason why they shouldn't be...
e.g.:
http://dpaste.com/0MR0R3C.txt
is this explicitly addressed in an rfc?
I don't believe so and there's no reason to.
On 21 Oct 2015, at 13:48, btb wrote:
are spf records allowed to be a cname?
I can't see any reason why they shouldn't be...
e.g.:
http://dpaste.com/0MR0R3C.txt
is this explicitly addressed in an rfc?
I don't believe so and there's no reason to. CNAME records trump all DNS
record types f
Am 21.10.2015 um 19:48 schrieb btb:
are spf records allowed to be a cname? e.g.:
http://dpaste.com/0MR0R3C.txt
is this explicitly addressed in an rfc?
a CNAME is always followed, hence you can't mix CNAME and other
ressource types, in other words: yes
otherwise you would need a SPF recor
On October 21, 2015 7:49:06 PM btb wrote:
http://dpaste.com/0MR0R3C.txt
https://dmarcian.com/spf-survey/email.instantbusinessresources.com
is this explicitly addressed in an rfc?
dont know, aslong spf is valid, then its ok
are spf records allowed to be a cname? e.g.:
http://dpaste.com/0MR0R3C.txt
is this explicitly addressed in an rfc?
thanks
-ben
On 20/10/15 21:10, Axb wrote:
On 10/20/2015 10:04 PM, RW wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:29:45 -0500 (CDT)
sha...@shanew.net wrote:
I already have rules that score for these tlds in received or envelope
from, but I'm getting tired of making the regular expression longer
and longer (in two diff
13 matches
Mail list logo
