> On 3/12/2006 2:21 PM, James Long wrote:
> > In my SpamAssassin-3.1.0 (p5-Mail-SpamAssassin-3.1.0_6) local.cf, I
> > use:
> >
> >
> > ...
> > trusted_networks 127.0.0.0/8 65.75.198.48/28 63.105.30.37/32
> > ...
> > whi
> James Long wrote:
> > In my SpamAssassin-3.1.0 (p5-Mail-SpamAssassin-3.1.0_6) local.cf, I
> > use:
> >
> >
> > ...
> > trusted_networks 127.0.0.0/8 65.75.198.48/28 63.105.30.37/32
> ^^
>
9:22 -0800 (PST)
(envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by ns.umpquanet.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k2CJ9LT4065172
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:09:21 -0800 (PST)
(envelope-from james)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:09:21 -0800 (PST)
F
Early test looks good
Content preview: [...]
Content analysis details: (11.3 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
-- --
-1.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
2.5 MISSIN
> >From the looks of it, you have a broken trust path. Does
> ns.museum.rain.com resolve to a reserved IP address when looked up by
> your SA box? If so, this tends to confuse the trust-path auto-guessing code
I'm a bit confused myself
I used to have:
trusted_networks 127.
I just now chang
Please cc: me on replies, as I do not read the list frequently.
Centurytel.net publishes the following SPF information:
; <<>> DiG 9.3.2 <<>> centurytel.net txt
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 36977
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSW
