Hi, On 21/06/18 02:51, Scott Kitterman wrote: > 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.
This is an opportunity to fix things, such an opportunity should not lost, especially if it helps more people to understand the problems with having too liberal SPF rules (defeating the purpose of SPF). A. _______________________________________________ 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
