On Thursday, June 21, 2018 02:38:45 AM Andrew McGlashan wrote: > Hi, > > On 21/06/18 00:46, Micah Snyder (micasnyd) wrote: > > Our operations group in Talos has updated the SPF record for > > lists.clamav.net <http://lists.clamav.net> to account for the issue w/ > > Cisco's SPF records. In addition, I believe they're also working on > > fixing the cisco.com <http://cisco.com> / sco.cisco.com > > <http://sco.cisco.com> SPF records but it's not something they can fix > > directly so that may take more time. > > It's still broken, do not use "?all" -- it is next to useless. > > https://wordtothewise.com/2016/07/spf-all/ > > I still contend it is best to be very specific about the SPF rules and > use "-all" ....
That falls in the category of "not what you would prefer", not "broken". Given that they just radically simplified their SPF record, I think it's certainly prudent to publish ?all (and in fact I recommended they do so). Perhaps, after validating there aren't any weird internal infrastructure corner cases that would cause list mail to be sent through another system, moving to -all would be appropriate, but not now. Also, if you want to kvetch about SPF, do it on spf-discuss or spf-help, where it's on topic. It only mattered here because it was interfering with delivery of list mail, which it isn't anymore. Scott K _______________________________________________ clamav-users mailing list clamav-users@lists.clamav.net http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml
