An SPF pass is a reasonably strong signal that the mail did come from
the purported source. An SPF fail doesn't tell you much.
The basic rule is that without any established track record, any
'directive' from a sender, about how a receiver should handle received
mail, is strongly like to h
In article <27d11417-6cdf-62cf-3d97-7a4e5581b...@blakjak.net> you write:
>Perhaps i've missed something, but isn't the whole point of SPF that if
>a _sender domain_ publishes a -all SPF record, that any platform using
>SPF is _supposed to reject email that doesn't pass_ ?
Ten years ago there wer
I think we were talking here about rejecting emails from a domain that do
not have a SPF policy, which is a bit different from rejecting emails from
a domain with a SPF policy "-all" and a fail result.
For IPv6, bad stuff happens to non authenticated emails , as the archive on
this list is chowing
Mark Foster wrote:
By 'configured to do so', does Michelle mean , well, obeying SPF?
Yes I mean if the receiving server is both checking SPF and enforcing
the policy configured ;-) (sorry I did a really bad job of being clear :) )
--
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/
_
Steve Atkins wrote:
Anyone who is sending mail over IPv6 has touched the network recently
enough that they don't have that excuse, and it's not unreasonable to
hold them to a slightly higher standard.
100% with you on that... but you know the way it is... the more people
start using ipv6 the
> On Aug 17, 2016, at 2:38 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>
> Franck Martin wrote:
>> I don't think you should block however:
>
> I'm not making any call either way - it's upto the admins involved.
> Personally I have a valid SPF record my milter I wrote and build from scratch
> the other week
Perhaps i've missed something, but isn't the whole point of SPF that if
a _sender domain_ publishes a -all SPF record, that any platform using
SPF is _supposed to reject email that doesn't pass_ ?
Forwarded email is going to cause an SPF failure, unless the
envelope-sender is rewritten (ala ma
Franck Martin wrote:
I don't think you should block however:
I'm not making any call either way - it's upto the admins involved.
Personally I have a valid SPF record my milter I wrote and build from
scratch the other week uses libspf2 to make determinations on whether to
accept or reject ema
I don't think you should block however:
-IPv4 rate limit if the email is not authenticated (pass SPF or DKIM)
-IPv6 reject email if it is not authenticated (pass SPF or DKIM)
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Michelle Sullivan
wrote:
> Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
>
>> If your mail server doe
Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
If your mail server doesn't expect to get forwarded mail, I can see
using SPF like that.
If you do expect to get forwarded mail, then it seems likely to cause
more false positives than it's worth.
I don't see that... Renaud just quoted
https://www.iplocatio
If your mail server doesn't expect to get forwarded mail, I can see using
SPF like that.
If you do expect to get forwarded mail, then it seems likely to cause more
false positives than it's worth.
Brandon
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Al Iverson
wrote:
> It's kind of a moot point. Not many
It's kind of a moot point. Not many sites block mail lacking SPF
today, but the longer you send mail from a domain without an SPF
record, the more likely you are to eventually run into woe. So your
point is valid, but only in a pretty limited way. I'd say add the SPF
record.
Gmail doesn't say that
Hello,
I am following another message which suggested that btinternet.com was
blocking emails from domains without SPF records.
This website suggests this is "common practice" in point 4:
https://www.iplocation.net/email-delivery-problems
Do you have this kind of policy or any evidence of this be
13 matches
Mail list logo
