On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, lascjr wrote:
Hi,
I have the XMail 1.20 + W2K Server working fine, but i don't have
success with the install of SPF Filter (xm-spf.pl).
What steps did you follow to instal xm-spf.pl in XMail?
- Davide
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in
There are filters available to do filtering with XMail based on SPF =
data.
However, there are two other important issues to fully supporting SPF. =
One
is SASL SMTP (allowing customers to send email on port 587, but only =
with
SMTP AUTH). You can easily bind XMail's SMTP service to both ports
Please explain why you think it is not practical to add the SPF record
to your DNS. Publishing an SPF record in your DNS is step 1, and you do
not need to do anything else if you don't feel like it. This just makes
life easier for everyone who receives messages from your domains.
Shiloh
.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] =
On
Behalf Of Kevin Williams
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 12:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [xmail] Re: SPF
Please explain why you think it is not practical to add the SPF record=20
to your DNS. Publishing an SPF record
by other ISPs if you publish SPF
records without proper SRS support within your email server.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] =
On
Behalf Of Kevin Williams
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 12:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [xmail] Re: SPF
Am Di, 2004-08-17 um 02.08 schrieb Nick Marino:
Davide are you familiar with SPF and do you have any plans on incorporating
it into Xmail?
SPF: Sender Policy Framework
http://spf.pobox.com/index.html
Did you take a look on xmailservers homepage or have you read this
mailinglists some
Davide Libenzi wrote:
This sounds like a perfect candidate for the new pre-data SMTP filters.
Any takers?
Me me:
http://www.xmailserver.org/xm-spf.pl
From what I have seen now from it is that a domain should have a SPF
record made in DNS, if the domain does not have it a mail will
Peter Lindeman wrote:
Davide Libenzi wrote:
This sounds like a perfect candidate for the new pre-data SMTP
filters. Any takers?
Me me:
http://www.xmailserver.org/xm-spf.pl
From what I have seen now from it is that a domain should have a SPF
record made in DNS, if the domain does
On Mon, 31 May 2004, Peter Lindeman wrote:
Davide Libenzi wrote:
This sounds like a perfect candidate for the new pre-data SMTP filters.
Any takers?
Me me:
http://www.xmailserver.org/xm-spf.pl
From what I have seen now from it is that a domain should have a SPF
record
Peter Lindeman wrote:
Davide Libenzi wrote:
This sounds like a perfect candidate for the new pre-data SMTP filters.
Any takers?
Me me:
http://www.xmailserver.org/xm-spf.pl
From what I have seen now from it is that a domain should have a SPF
record made in DNS, if the domain does
On Mon, 31 May 2004, Michael Luke wrote:
Peter Lindeman wrote:
Davide Libenzi wrote:
This sounds like a perfect candidate for the new pre-data SMTP
filters. Any takers?
Me me:
http://www.xmailserver.org/xm-spf.pl
From what I have seen now from it is that a domain
At 12:06 5/31/2004, you wrote:
From what I have seen now from it is that a domain should have a SPF
record made in DNS, if the domain does not have it a mail will always
pass. As long as not all domains in the whole world do have SPF records
what is the sense of this at all?
Reducing bounces
On Sun, 30 May 2004, Michael Luke wrote:
Hi everybody.
I've just started using Xmail 1.18 and am impressed by how well it runs.
Does Xmail contain features that I can use to verify Sender Policy
Framework rules? http://spf.pobox.com/intro.html
This sounds like a perfect candidate for the
At 13:14 5/30/2004, you wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2004, Michael Luke wrote:
Hi everybody.
I've just started using Xmail 1.18 and am impressed by how well it runs.
Does Xmail contain features that I can use to verify Sender Policy
Framework rules? http://spf.pobox.com/intro.html
This
On Sun, 30 May 2004, Tracy wrote:
At 13:14 5/30/2004, you wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2004, Michael Luke wrote:
Hi everybody.
I've just started using Xmail 1.18 and am impressed by how well it runs.
Does Xmail contain features that I can use to verify Sender Policy
Framework
At 13:22 5/30/2004, you wrote:
This sounds like a perfect candidate for the new pre-data SMTP filters.
Any takers?
I'm looking at it, but not moving very quickly. There are a couple of
Win32
SPF libraries on the net, and libraries for C++, python, and java (didn't
see any for perl...
On Sun, 30 May 2004, Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2004, Michael Luke wrote:
Hi everybody.
I've just started using Xmail 1.18 and am impressed by how well it runs.
Does Xmail contain features that I can use to verify Sender Policy
Framework rules?
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Shiloh Jennings wrote:
Then do an SPF filter in Perl. You don't need to do it inside XMail. You
have all the info inside the spool file XMail header. No?
Good point. SpamAssassin 2.70 is going to support SPF, so we could just
have SA do the SPF lookups instead of
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Shiloh Jennings
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [xmail] Re: SPF
The spammers are not stupid, so they don't use @[EMAIL PROTECTED] etc.
anymore and SPF is useless. ;(
You are missing the bigger picture. Once everybody is using SPF
I can see the point for worms, but spammers can simply register throw away
domains to spam from and set up SPF rules that allow all from that domain.
Many spammers already strictly use throwaway domains. I really see the
anti-spam war as very much like the anti-virus war, anything and
-Message d'origine-
De : Shiloh Jennings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoy=E9 : vendredi 26 mars 2004 18:07
=C0 : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : [xmail] Re: SPF
=20
=20
I can see the point for worms, but spammers can simply=20
register throw away
domains to spam from and set up SPF
http://spf.pobox.com/intro.html
= SPF is developing support in Postfix, Exim, Qmail, and Sendmail
What about XMail?
I figured I would bring this topic back up. :) AOL is already publishing
SPF records for their domain. Any email server with SPF support is able to
automatically filtering
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Shiloh Jennings wrote:
http://spf.pobox.com/intro.html
= SPF is developing support in Postfix, Exim, Qmail, and Sendmail
What about XMail?
I figured I would bring this topic back up. :) AOL is already publishing
SPF records for their domain. Any email server
is really getting to me
and my customers...
Shawn
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Davide Libenzi
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 6:13 PM
To: XMail mailing list
Subject: [xmail] Re: SPF
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Shiloh Jennings wrote:
http
30% of the SPAM -- that would be an awesome start :)
S
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Davide Libenzi
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 7:56 PM
To: XMail mailing list
Subject: [xmail] Re: SPF
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Shawn Anderson wrote:
Now
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Shawn Anderson wrote:
I really do understand your point :) But look at the amount of spam --
something needs to be done. It looks like some serious players are backing
this particular idea.
So what about going back the discussion that was on the list for a while
Then do an SPF filter in Perl. You don't need to do it inside XMail. You
have all the info inside the spool file XMail header. No?
Good point. SpamAssassin 2.70 is going to support SPF, so we could just
have SA do the SPF lookups instead of XMail. That is fair. What I am more
interested in
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Davide Libenzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: vrijdag 26 maart 2004 1:56
Aan: XMail mailing list
Onderwerp: [xmail] Re: SPF
=20
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Shawn Anderson wrote:
=20
Now you are getting into that chicken or egg argument :-/ =20
I agree, I=20
would
And as much as I am not a fan of MS or AOL, between the two of them
they control way more than 0.001% of the mail traffic on the
internet. If you add all the hotmail users and aol users, I would
argue that you have more than 30% of the internet mail users just in
those two groups. Plus even
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [xmail] Re: SPF
Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Don Drake wrote:
I agree, this is getting a lot of attention lately...
When more than 1% of the existing internet mail infrastructure will use
it, I'll think about it. I do not want to add
that SA is being used by at least 1% of the internet mail
infrastructure.
- Original Message -
From: Davide Libenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 9:05 PM
Subject: [xmail] Re: SPF
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Don Drake wrote:
I agree
SpamAssassin does not do SPF. It will incorporate it in a future version.
-Don
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Charles Frolick
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 8:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [xmail] Re: SPF
Spamassasin
I think SA 2.70 does, but not SA 2.63. SA 2.70 is available but not
considered production ready.
- Original Message -
From: Charles Frolick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 8:56 AM
Subject: [xmail] Re: SPF
Spamassasin doesn't do SPF
I agree, this is getting a lot of attention lately...
-Don
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Orion Productions
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 6:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [xmail] SPF
http://spf.pobox.com/intro.html
=
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Don Drake wrote:
I agree, this is getting a lot of attention lately...
When more than 1% of the existing internet mail infrastructure will use
it, I'll think about it. I do not want to add code to XMail for a non
standard that might die tomorrow.
- Davide
-
To
Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Don Drake wrote:
I agree, this is getting a lot of attention lately...
When more than 1% of the existing internet mail infrastructure will use
it, I'll think about it. I do not want to add code to XMail for a non
standard that might die
36 matches
Mail list logo
