On lør 12 sep 2009 23:46:44 CEST, John Hardin wrote
The latter. Possibly through another list instead of
trusted_networks; the semantics are slightly different and
overloading the current trusted list with an SPF meaning might be a
it will be one more networks list to manage, and keeping track of what
is what later will get more confused if there is a seperate list for
spf, it just magic that it have worked so long without any wondering
why all that spf fails in sa :)
bad idea. spf_forwarders perhaps?
imho i will say no keep it trusted_networks, makes lees lists and it
still make sense to trusted_networks to also include spf testing
outside this barrier, to minic how pypolicyd-spf does it in mta
whar types of ips i whitelist is:
1: isp that are known to forward custommers emails
2: forwarders that dont use srs or else have type of email handling
email forward systems
what types i remove from trusted_networks is:
1: ips that send spams
2: forwards where there is spam scanning and still forward the spam
i still have to see spf pass and spf whitelist in spam here :)
(first part is easy for the spammer, 2nd part is the paying one)
--
xpoint
