> Matus UHLAR - fantomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> But problem still persists that senders from the private > >> 192.168.0.0/16 network are tagged with SPF_FAIL. > > > > aha, so you should check now, why do those fail.
On 25.03.08 17:47, Enrico Scholz wrote: > Perhaps, because spamassassin does not provide an option to > disable SPF scan for certain sender ips? Maybe the SA people decided not to do that. Maybe only those should provide SPF records who can verify their own customers - why should you use SPF otherwise? > > Is that your domain SPF checks fail for? > > What would be the sideeffects of adding '+ip4:192.168.0.0/16' to > the SPF record? mailservers on other networks could have FP's when receiving spam with your domain from their private networks... -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. There's a long-standing bug relating to the x86 architecture that allows you to install Windows. -- Matthew D. Fuller
