On 06.04.2016 18:54, Stephen Ulmer wrote:
> You ignored my point about being a good citizen. I’m talking about what you
> PUBLISH, how it is useful to others, and how it will eventually lend
> protection to your users reputations as the number of DMARC implementations
> increases.
In my last
> On Apr 6, 2016, at 11:24 AM, Binarus via Info-cyrus
> wrote:
>
> On 06.04.2016 02:54, Stephen Ulmer wrote:
>> You make some good arguments, but then you say other things that make me
>> think you’re not clueful. I think you’ll be more persuasive if you consider
>> the following:
>
> Indee
On 06.04.2016 02:54, Stephen Ulmer wrote:
> You make some good arguments, but then you say other things that make me
> think you’re not clueful. I think you’ll be more persuasive if you consider
> the following:
Indeed, I'm not clueful regarding DMARC. Regarding SPF, DKIM and SMTP in
general,
> If you want to see flame wars even more pointless and/or entertaining than
> this one, check out the mailing lists for DMARC. ;-) They make these recent
> exchanges seem quaint by comparison.
I am sorry that this thread is not useful to you. I don't consider it a flame
war. Every party (exce
On 04/05/2016 11:33 AM, Andrew Morgan via Info-cyrus wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2016, lst_hoe02--- via Info-cyrus wrote:
Zitat von Binarus via Info-cyrus :
Combine SPF / DKIM with domain blacklisting, and then you *have* an
efficient spam fighting tool.
As stated the spam actually reaching o
On Tue, 5 Apr 2016, lst_hoe02--- via Info-cyrus wrote:
Zitat von Binarus via Info-cyrus :
Combine SPF / DKIM with domain blacklisting, and then you *have* an
efficient spam fighting tool.
As stated the spam actually reaching our inboxes after around 90% cutoff is
valid DKIM/SPF signed
On 05.04.2016 09:34, lst_hoe02--- via Info-cyrus wrote:
> The "we generally have to reject all messages which are not secured by SPF or
> DKIM" mean you want to force others to use non standard headers so in fact
> you are breaking SMTP RFC.
I think we don't. At least SPF works without additio
On 05.04.2016 14:15, Alvin Starr via Info-cyrus wrote:
>
> I kind of have to agree with Andreas to some extent on this.
> SPF/DKIM does not help on incoming spam filtering all that much just because
> so few people use it and the default action is to accept mail that has no
> SPF/DKIM tagging.
On 05.04.2016 09:42, lst_hoe02--- via Info-cyrus wrote:
>
> As stated the spam actually reaching our inboxes after around 90% cutoff is
> valid DKIM/SPF signed as it is mostly from the big free providers like
> Outlook.com, Google and Yahoo. Some other big share is from professional spam
> farm
On 04.04.2016 23:02, Vincent Fox via Info-cyrus wrote:
> I'll admit I am testing SPF as a greylisting measure.
> Your IP gets hardfail, you get 5min deferral.
>
> I don't delude myself it does anything other than catch maybe
> 5-10% of spammers that don't bother with retries. More often it
> seem
On 04.04.2016 21:50, Joseph Brennan via Info-cyrus wrote:
>
>> But with SPF or DKIM, you can immediately blacklist any sender
>> domain after having received SPAM from that domain.
>
> It would never be a phished stolen account, so that would be safe.
>
You are right. It is the only logical thi
On 04/05/2016 03:42 AM, lst_hoe02--- via Info-cyrus wrote:
Zitat von Binarus via Info-cyrus :
Combine SPF / DKIM with domain blacklisting, and then you *have* an
efficient spam fighting tool.
As stated the spam actually reaching our inboxes after around 90%
cutoff is valid DKIM/SPF sign
Zitat von Binarus via Info-cyrus :
Combine SPF / DKIM with domain blacklisting, and then you *have* an
efficient spam fighting tool.
As stated the spam actually reaching our inboxes after around 90%
cutoff is valid DKIM/SPF signed as it is mostly from the big free
providers like Outl
Zitat von Binarus via Info-cyrus :
On 04.04.2016 18:12, Sebastian Hagedorn via Info-cyrus wrote:
Personally, I think that's a phenomenally stupid approach. As long
as you can't show me an RFC that says you MUST or even SHOULD use
SPF or DKIM, you're breaking SMTP.
I think it's a phenomena
On 04/04/2016 09:43 AM, Binarus via Info-cyrus wrote:
But the spammer then first has to get a domain and then has to set up the DNS
entries, which obviously is too complicated for most spammers. Furthermore, I
am constantly seeing messages trying to get into the server which originate
from d
Binarus via Info-cyrus wrote:
But with SPF or DKIM, you can immediately blacklist any sender
domain after having received SPAM from that domain.
It would never be a phished stolen account, so that would be safe.
Joseph Brennan
Columbia University Information Technology
Cyrus Home Pa
>
> You are for sure aware that neither SPF nor DKIM are able or designed to
> fight Spam.
I know that a lot of people are stressing this. But it is not my opinion nor
experience (see below).
> In fact more than half of the Spam reaching our inboxes are valid according
> DKIM/SPF so we even m
On 04.04.2016 18:12, Sebastian Hagedorn via Info-cyrus wrote:
> Personally, I think that's a phenomenally stupid approach. As long as you
> can't show me an RFC that says you MUST or even SHOULD use SPF or DKIM,
> you're breaking SMTP.
I think it's a phenomenally intelligent approach. I can't se
Personally, I think that's a phenomenally stupid approach. As long as you
can't show me an RFC that says you MUST or even SHOULD use SPF or DKIM,
you're breaking SMTP.
Due to the exponential increase of spam, we generally have to reject all
messages which are not secured by SPF or DKIM, and we
Zitat von Binarus via Info-cyrus :
Dave,
On 04.04.2016 13:22, Dave McMurtrie wrote:
the messages which are being sent from this mailing list's server
don't seem to be protected by SPF or signed by DKIM. Are there
plans to implement at least one of these in the near future?
We currently
Dave,
On 04.04.2016 16:32, Dave McMurtrie wrote:
> I completely agree. I'll run this up the management chain and see if I
> can get approval. Really, the ideal solution would be to set up a list
> server in the cyrusimap.org domain and handle it there because CMU
> management doesn't care what w
Dave,
On 04.04.2016 13:22, Dave McMurtrie wrote:
>> the messages which are being sent from this mailing list's server don't seem
>> to be protected by SPF or signed by DKIM. Are there plans to implement at
>> least one of these in the near future?
>>
>
> We currently have no plans to implement
On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 15:38 +0200, Binarus via Info-cyrus wrote:
> Dear list administrator,
>
> the messages which are being sent from this mailing list's server don't seem
> to be protected by SPF or signed by DKIM. Are there plans to implement at
> least one of these in the near future?
>
We
Dear list administrator,
the messages which are being sent from this mailing list's server don't seem to
be protected by SPF or signed by DKIM. Are there plans to implement at least
one of these in the near future?
Regards,
Binarus
Cyrus Home Page: http://www.cyrusimap.org/
List Archives/
24 matches
Mail list logo
