=spf1 a -all
Which resolves to: hamhock.hoovers.com. IN A 66.179.38.137
Which does not match 66.179.38.26
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
416-247-7740
On 14-Dec-06, at 10:30 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm not the one who brought it up.
Gino Cerullo wrote:
Marc,
I get the impression that you run a business that markets itself
as an anti-spam solution and it's based on forwarding email and
that business model is threatened by the growing
On 14-Dec-06, at 4:35 PM, j o a r wrote:
On 14 dec 2006, at 20.40, Gino Cerullo wrote:
I presume the answer you gave is an admission that you are, in
fact, using email forwarding as the method behind your spam
filtering system.
The link from perkel.com - junkemailfilter.com is pretty
.
To subscribe to the list send an email to subscribe-spf-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
416-247-7740
This email address protect by SPF! Want to protect your domain's
email from forgery? Visit openspf.org
of the rewritten envelope from.
You just need to make your conditionals match the SRS version.
You have to rewrite all your conditionals to support the broken
technology.
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
416-247-7740
This email address protect by SPF
those to try and prove the
ineffectiveness of the protocol. Just because someone writes an
article, one lacking any real evidence and citing an ancient study,
doesn't make it true.
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
416-247-7740
This email address
and now you think
you have proof of something. Did you fail to notice the overwhelming
number of graphics that have good domain and bad domain in them. I
know you didn't bother to actually read any of it otherwise you
wouldn't have embarrassed yourself by linking to it.
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel
.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
They are the ones you should be taking this up with. We can't help you.
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
416-247-7740
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on relay2.corp.good-sam.com
update to 3.1.5 if posible
and enable spf check
How does this help? Earthlink does not publish SPF records.
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
416-247-7740
smime.p7s
Description: S
through mail.cs.uni-sb.de (mail.cs.uni-sb.de [134.96.254.200]) then
this would explain the SOFTFAIL. Forwarding breaks SPF.
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
416-247-7740
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Bastard Controller' :P Whooop!
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
416-247-7740
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
be able to use spamassassin to help me with this? would
sa-learn be the most efficient way? I can think of using procmail to
filter them into a seperate mailbox, but the mail headers all very
random.
Your help would be much appreciated.
Sorry, correction to URL.
http://www.openspf.org
--
Gino
On 31-Aug-06, at 8:08 PM, Chris wrote:
This is even better than the last one:
http://194-144-135-77.du.xdsl.is/~ingi/.change/index.php?
MfcISAPICommand=ChangeFPP
Who are these masked avengers? ;-)
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
416-247-7740
On 30-Aug-06, at 1:10 PM, Michael Grey wrote:Are there any SA methods that allow verification of the ‘sender’ of an email ? I am aware of SPF which can confirm that a host at ip address x.x.x.x is authorized to send mail as from domain “A”, but how about a means to confirm that ‘[EMAIL PROTECTED]’
On 30-Aug-06, at 1:44 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
Gino Cerullo writes:
part 1.2 text/plain1027
On 30-Aug-06, at 1:10 PM, Michael Grey wrote:
Are there any SA methods that allow verification of the ‘sender’ of
an email ?
I am aware of SPF which can confirm that a host at ip
this at the MTA. Depending on your MTA you may be
able to address this by checking against the user database but I
wouldn't do it in SpamAssasin. It's a content filter, it shouldn't be
verifying user accounts for this purpose.
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
416
the un-successful log-in
attempts, then the bogus credentials you supply are useless. They
would disregard them resulting in a big waste of time on your part.
A better use of your time is to fill-in the input fields with Russian
swear words until you get board. ;-)
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel
the email we get, sometimes we forget that honest mistakes
sometimes happen.
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
416-247-7740
know of any online tools to evaluate the
Domain Key.
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
416-247-7740
time we encouraged proper and correct server
and DNS configurations so we can use all the tools at our disposal to
our advantage.
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
416-247-7740
the general consensus is to leave it alone. Especially
since SPF is still quite new and still technically in an experimental
stage.
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
416-247-7740
On 23-Aug-06, at 1:09 PM, John D. Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Gino Cerullo wrote:
So the big question is really this : Should NONE get an SPF
score ?
That is a matter of internal policy on your part. If you want to
penalize domains for not having an SPF record you could give
is no you shouldn't. Their is no score
to cover NONE.
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
416-247-7740
-learn.
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
416-247-7740
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Yeah, I've been getting hammered by these too. I've configured
Postfix to do HELO checks and the vast majority (95%) are failing at
the MTA.
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
T: 416-247-7740
F: 416-247-7503
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME
another ISP, are hitting RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK.'
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
T: 416-247-7740
F: 416-247-7503
On 14-Aug-06, at 9:38 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Now that even spammers are using SPF, is there a way to penalize those with SPF records that are too broad?[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ host -t txt topsyvwkh.nettopsyvwkh.net descriptive text "v=spf1 ip4:51.0.0.0/2 ip4:66.0.0.0/2 ip4:145.0.0.0/2
Unless you post real domains it is very difficult to help with SPF questions. Since we cannot query your DNS, we can't determine whether there are errors in the SPF record. On 5-Aug-06, at 4:29 PM, Benu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I need help also, I am seeing the same messages. In
'mx:smtpd.domain.net' in the record for
'domain.net'
does not mean 'smtpd.domain.net' has an SPF record or that it is
cover by the record of 'domain.net'
The test you show above shows a PASS. Which test gave you a problem?
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M
Hi Benny,I just tried to send you an email directly and got this back.Aug 2 17:39:33 server postfix/smtpd[13818]: BFB481BD016: client=unknown[216.138.200.230], sasl_method=CRAM-MD5, sasl_username=gcerulloAug 2 17:39:33 server postfix/cleanup[13821]: BFB481BD016: message-id=[EMAIL PROTECTED]Aug
For someone who was worried about breaking forwarding with SPF just a little while ago. What you propose below blows forwarding out of the water. On 2-Aug-06, at 4:53 PM, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Allowing IMAP/POP to Send EmailThe email SMTP protocol was created in simpler times. One of
On 2-Aug-06, at 4:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Anyone serious about stopping SPAM should not use SpamCop. They have no real checking method, it's like AOL's spam blocking method...they just let users submit what they think is spam and then block it. It's pointless. There's not even a way to
On 2-Aug-06, at 6:29 PM, Jason Haar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:FYI: Courier-IMAP has had this feature for some time. You can configure it so that any mail message dropped into an IMAP subfolder named (e.g.) "Outbox" will be auto-sent - i.e. piped into /usr/sbin/sendmail. Completely removes the need
On 2-Aug-06, at 7:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Sniffers exist. Passwords are NOT the solution. They may evolve into part of the problem. Traffic analysis and slow downs for sending too many emails too rapidly are part of the solution. Forcing authenticated SMTP submission finishes the solution.
). Then both SPF and
forwarding would
work fine. And furthermore be consistent.
Hamish.
That's the basic idea behind SRS. The forwarding server re-writes the
header and takes responsibility for the forwarded email.
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
On 26-Jul-06, at 4:00 AM, Rolf Kraeuchi wrote:Gino Cerullo schrieb:[...] Hey, I never claimed checking and rejecting before DATA to be ready for'large scale' deployments. ;-) But, I have to say that in the six monthsthat I've been doing it I've never had a false positive. knocks onwood Also, I've
but because SA scans the outgoing email regardless, it
scores that message as a FAIL. If the score was too high for FAIL
then these legitimate messages could be rejected even before they
left the sending server.
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
T: 416
that an email message claiming
to come from one of my domains or from one of my IP addresses does in
fact originate there.
Thanks
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
T: 416-247-7740
F: 416-247-7503
not that SPF is a broken technology, it's that SMTP, at
best, hasn't caught up to it yet or at worst, as has been stated
already, is broken.
Also, no one is forcing you to implement SPF, or are they? Tell me
who they are, I'll send my boys.
Gino Cerullo wrote:
Whether it's SPF, DKIM
On 25-Jul-06, at 5:05 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:I'd settle for just well defined, and actually usable.Or we could just wait until it actually works right.That sounds reasonable. If the protocol is as sound as it appears to be, the MTA developers will make an effort to implement it. If not, then
are really interested you can subscribe to their mailing lists
here http://new.openspf.org/Forums
If you like you can email me directly as well. I would imagine that
people are getting tired of us going off-topic on this list by now.
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto
this thread.
I am curious though. Why do you think SRS is a bad idea and what
makes it clearly a mistake. You appear to feel strongly about this
but without an explanation it's hard to fathom why. Please elaborate.
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
T: 416-247
in NEUTRAL (?all) do you have a tale to
tell or are you just being overly cautious for now?
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
T: 416-247-7740
F: 416-247-7503
On 18-Jul-06, at 11:14 AM, Logan Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Chr. v. Stuckrad wrote: I'm a postmaster working with spamassassin (now debian sarge) for the last years, we habe one filter-host for all mails, so at the moment we have only one global bayes-database.. We are a
in a more recent version
of Spamassassin?
Any suggestions would be appritiated.
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
T: 416-247-7740
F: 416-247-7503
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
dynamically to his router by his cable
company (ISP).
Like I said the Postfix policy daemon that checks SPF correctly
ignores this IP address as it represents the MUA (Mail User Agent.) I
guess I'm expecting SA to know that as well but I guess it doesn't.
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21
On 10-Jul-06, at 7:39 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Gino Cerullo wrote:
On 10-Jul-06, at 5:49 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
If the MSA in question is *ONLY* an MSA, you're easiest quickest
fix is to just not trust it (or mark it as trusted but not
internal).
If I'm understanding you
in your head. Off to the archives I go.
BIG STASH OF FIREWORKS! Boy I'm glad you don't live in my
neighbourhood. :-O
Daryl
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
T: 416-247-7740
F: 416-247-7503
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
On 5-Jul-06, at 3:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Does anybody know of a vendor that sells boxes with SpamAssassin pre-installed, with a pretty GUI with quarantine ability? (My company won't allow home-brewed solutions, as they want a vendor to call if I get hit by a spam bus).-- Burton Windle
On 29-Jun-06, at 5:48 AM, Leigh Sharpe wrote:1) Bayes is still in training. I've only recently given everybody the opportunity to feed it spam. I expect it to get better soon. My question was more related to why this stuff is getting through now, when it used to get blocked. I'm guessing your
On 25-Jun-06, at 12:58 PM, "Jim Hermann - UUN Hostmaster" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Does it do any good to complain to the ISP that accepted the original emailwith a forged email address that uses a domain name that I administer?I administer a number of domain names that are being used in the
On 25-Jun-06, at 5:51 PM, John D. Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006, Gino Cerullo wrote:
Does it do any good to complain to the ISP that accepted the
original email
with a forged email address that uses a domain name that I
administer?
Personally, nowadays I believe bouncing messages
Server C about NOT using SPF to reject the email from SMTP Server
B.
Agreed.
Again, this has merit but your approach will determine how successful
you are. Also, it may be easier to determine who to approach about
the subject.
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto
53 matches
Mail list logo
