LuKreme wrote:
I don't remember what ?all means though, or how it differs from -all or
~all.
? means the record makes no claims about that source. ?all basically
says, "Mail might come from other places, or it might not, we aren't
sure." (In RFC terms, mail from us MAY be sent from other pl
On 13-Mar-2009, at 11:31, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote on Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:17:29 +0100:
There is no ~all in his spf record.
I was assuming that a missing "all" might trigger this NEUTRAL (I
haven't
seen a single example without it yet). That's wrong, it seems.
IIRC
On 13.03.09 14:31, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> No. I assume you get that neutral because of ~all. And you get that ~all
> because it is the default in case it's missing. -all is *very* different
> from that.
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote on Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:17:29 +0100:
> > There is no ~all in his
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote on Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:17:29 +0100:
> There is no ~all in his spf record.
I was assuming that a missing "all" might trigger this NEUTRAL (I haven't
seen a single example without it yet). That's wrong, it seems.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at C
> Rw wrote on Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:59:56 +:
> > You get the neutral result if you don't get a match in any of the terms,
> > so wont adding ~all or -all on the end, simply turn neutral into
> > [soft]fail.
On 13.03.09 14:31, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> No. I assume you get that neutral because of ~al
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:31:17 +0100
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Rw wrote on Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:59:56 +:
>
> > You get the neutral result if you don't get a match in any of the
> > terms, so wont adding ~all or -all on the end, simply turn neutral
> > into [soft]fail.
>
> No. I assume you get that
Rw wrote on Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:59:56 +:
> You get the neutral result if you don't get a match in any of the terms,
> so wont adding ~all or -all on the end, simply turn neutral into
> [soft]fail.
No. I assume you get that neutral because of ~all. And you get that ~all
because it is the defa
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:14:10 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 12.03.09 00:50, spamassas...@corwyn.net wrote:
> > Interesting, but, the domain I'm asking about isn't sinister.net :-)
> >
> > My current guess is that when the mail processes into amavis, when
> > send from local <> local (
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote on Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:14:10 +0100:
> I think the SPF_NEUTRAL is because you don't have ~all or -all at the end of
> your TXT record.
As Matus says: add an "-all" at the end to achieve what you want.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Int
On 12.03.09 00:50, spamassas...@corwyn.net wrote:
> Interesting, but, the domain I'm asking about isn't sinister.net :-)
>
> My current guess is that when the mail processes into amavis, when
> send from local <> local (all on the same server) the email comes
> from localhost, triggers SA, local
Interesting, but, the domain I'm asking about isn't sinister.net :-)
My current guess is that when the mail processes into amavis, when
send from local <> local (all on the same server) the email comes
from localhost, triggers SA, localhost isn't in the SPF record, and
thus triggers the SPF_N
On 11-Mar-2009, at 17:20, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 15:16 -0400, spamassas...@corwyn.net wrote:
v=spf1 a mx ptr
Interesting: I just pointed thre SPF testing tools at
http://www.kitterman.com/spf/validate.html at sinister.net. That
retrieved:
spf1 ip4:75.180.132.0/24 mx incl
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 15:16 -0400, spamassas...@corwyn.net wrote:
> v=spf1 a mx ptr
Interesting: I just pointed thre SPF testing tools at
http://www.kitterman.com/spf/validate.html at sinister.net. That
retrieved:
spf1 ip4:75.180.132.0/24 mx include:aspmx.googlemail.com
include:mail.zoneedit.com
On 11-Mar-2009, at 13:16, spamassas...@corwyn.net wrote:
example.com text = "v=spf1 a mx ptr"
mine looks like:
example.com TXT "v=spf1 a mx ptr ~all"
have you tried http://old.openspf.org/wizard.html (or similar)?
--
There's nothing to do, so you just stay in bed [ah, poor thing
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, spamassas...@corwyn.net wrote:
since it's from me TO me that implies my spf is wrong.
My SPF (aka TXT) record is currently set to (per nslookup):
example.com text = "v=spf1 a mx ptr"
What's wrong with that? the MX record comes back as the mail server.
Where are yo
I have user mail being sent from my domain to my domain flagging as
spam. that's ok really. It's what's making it flag as spam that's
bugging me - SPF_NEUTRAL
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=4.659 tagged_above=-999 required=4.3
tests=[DYN_RDNS_SHORT_HELO_HTML=0.287, HTML_FONT_SIZE_LARGE=0.001,
16 matches
Mail list logo
