M>
M>Martin, the mail didn't go through the same server. Is it possible
M>that you've omitted 212.250.162.17 from your list of trusted_networks?
M>This would cause an SPF failure.
M>
M>When I set my trusted_networks to 212.250.162.0/24 and run these
M>messages through, they both get SPF_PASS.
martin smith wrote:
M>
M>Could you please forward a few complete messages that
M>incorrectly get an SPF fail with the patch applied.
M>
M>The patch has no effect on SPF_HELO tests.
M>
M>
M>Daryl
M>
Looks like I have to put mail.apache.org as a trusted server for this list
to pass the spf test, the
ts=256 verify=NO);
Tue, 12 Apr 2005 03:07:57 -0400
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 03:08:04 -0400
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1
martin smith wrote:
M>I had the same problem. It turns out that if the email is being
M>relayed through trusted or internal hosts, SA will skip the
M>SPF checks on the belief that it cannot trust that one of
M>those hosts hasn't
M>changed the envelope headers.I ended up opening an enhance
M>I had the same problem. It turns out that if the email is being
M>relayed through trusted or internal hosts, SA will skip the
M>SPF checks on the belief that it cannot trust that one of
M>those hosts hasn't
M>changed the envelope headers.I ended up opening an enhancement
M>request to a
Arvinn Løkkebakken wrote:
I have two questions about the SPF plugin in SA.
What is the difference between FAIL and SOFTFAIL on Helo? When running
SA with bayes and network FAIL scores close to zero while SOFTFAIL
gives a solid 3.1. Does FAIL hit a lot of ham? According to my stats,
SPF_HELO_FAIL
