My question has been misunderstood as commentary on SPF, etc.
It is not about SPF, I'm just trying to steer the question towards a
spamassassin tag that can be triggered.
I found a solution with my own rule.
I wasn't sure whether the SA rules referring to 'from' header were
actually meaning
On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 15:07 -0400, francis picabia wrote:
SPF works as designed. Forget SPF.
Quite: the only real use for SPF is to prevent you inadvertently
spraying innocent people with backscatter. If the sender has been forged
by a spammer and your MTA can't deliver it (usually because the
On 2015-02-12 08:17, francis picabia wrote:
Our spamassassin 3.3.1 is marking email with tags like and
SPF_SOFTFAIL and SPF_FAIL, as long as the sender info
is failing the SPF test. But if the sender passes the test
and the From: address is from our domain, then there
are no SPF tags appearing.
On 2015-02-12 11:27, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 15:07 -0400, francis picabia wrote:
SPF works as designed. Forget SPF.
Quite: the only real use for SPF is to prevent you inadvertently
spraying innocent people with backscatter. If the sender has been forged
by a spammer and
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Benny Pedersen m...@junc.eu wrote:
On 12. feb. 2015 17.40.13 Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com wrote:
Spf deals with the envelope sender not the from address.
envelope_sender_header From
bad example to follow, it not really a spf question, sender-id is the
On 12. feb. 2015 20.17.44 Dave Warren da...@hireahit.com wrote:
However, using a DMARC quarantine or reject policy causes breakage
when users attempt to participate in discussion based mailing lists, or
other systems which modify messages (adding subject tags, adding
footers, removing existing
Our spamassassin 3.3.1 is marking email with tags like and
SPF_SOFTFAIL and SPF_FAIL, as long as the sender info
is failing the SPF test. But if the sender passes the test
and the From: address is from our domain, then there
are no SPF tags appearing.
The risk is that users don't look at the
Spf deals with the envelope sender not the from address.
Beyond that it, you might find dkim to be a better solution to prevent others
spoofing your domain.
Regards,
KAM
On February 12, 2015 11:17:38 AM EST, francis picabia fpica...@gmail.com
wrote:
Our spamassassin 3.3.1 is marking email
Am 12.02.2015 um 17:17 schrieb francis picabia:
Our spamassassin 3.3.1 is marking email with tags like and
SPF_SOFTFAIL and SPF_FAIL, as long as the sender info
is failing the SPF test. But if the sender passes the test
and the From: address is from our domain, then there
are no SPF tags
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com wrote:
Spf deals with the envelope sender not the from address.
Beyond that it, you might find dkim to be a better solution to prevent
others spoofing your domain.
Regards,
KAM
Thanks for the reply. Has anyone tried a
Am 12.02.2015 um 17:58 schrieb francis picabia:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com wrote:
Spf deals with the envelope sender not the from address.
Beyond that it, you might find dkim to be a better solution to prevent
others spoofing your domain.
Thanks for
On 12. feb. 2015 17.40.13 Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com wrote:
Spf deals with the envelope sender not the from address.
envelope_sender_header From
bad example to follow, it not really a spf question, sender-id is the
untrusted version of dkim
current dmarc rfc have design faults :(
12 matches
Mail list logo
