On 10/22/15, 11:45 AM, "Joe Acquisto-j4" wrote:
>Thanks for all replies. It seems resolvable for SPF anyway. I have
>this vague concern about PTR, but that may not count for much anyway
>these days.
Anyone who insists that an address $DOMAINPART must equal server PTR is
already blocking milli
Dave Pooser 10/22/15 11:53 AM >>>
>(Oops, forgot to include the list first time. Need more caffeine)
Me too.
>>An organization I know of is moving to o365 from their own mail system.
>>For a variety of reasons, the migration cannot be completely resolved
>>"day one". Thus, we concocte
On 10/22/2015 04:34 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
This may not be the right place to discuss this, as it is a generic
anti SPAM query, but please indulge and point me to where answers
might be found. Or, just answer if you feel inclined. After this
mornings SPF discussion . . . well, I'll ask any
>
>From: Joe Acquisto-j4
>Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 9:34 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: SOT - Fowarding mail to new service, keeping same MX, pitfalls
>This may not be the right place to discuss this, as it is a generic anti SPAM
>q
(Oops, forgot to include the list first time. Need more caffeine)
>An organization I know of is moving to o365 from their own mail system.
>For a variety of reasons, the migration cannot be completely resolved
>"day one". Thus, we concocted a scheme of keeping MX as is, and having
>the curre
Am 22.10.2015 um 17:35 schrieb Marc Perkel:
Trying to install and run spamassassin on Centos 7. Been using Centos 6.
But things have changed.
I got it to start up but I don't know where the log files are. It's not
logging to /var/log/maillog
Port is open and appears to be as if it were runnin
Trying to install and run spamassassin on Centos 7. Been using Centos 6.
But things have changed.
I got it to start up but I don't know where the log files are. It's not
logging to /var/log/maillog
Port is open and appears to be as if it were running. But need to find
the log files to see if
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:34:27 -0700
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On October 20, 2015 11:39:36 AM PDT, Amir Caspi
> wrote:
> >On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:16 PM, RW wrote:
> >
> >> body URI_HOST_IN_BLACKLISTeval:check_uri_host_in_blacklist()
> >> header HEADER_HOST_IN_BLACKLIST eval:check_uri_host_
This may not be the right place to discuss this, as it is a generic anti SPAM
query, but please indulge and point me to where answers might be found. Or,
just answer if you feel inclined. After this mornings SPF discussion . . .
well, I'll ask anyway.
An organization I know of is moving to o
Am 22.10.2015 um 13:55 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
Am 22.10.2015 um 00:08 schrieb Bill Cole:
I don't believe so and there's no reason to. CNAME records trump all DNS
record types for a name so it may be usually unwise to have a CNAME
record for a name that is used in email address domain p
Am 22.10.2015 um 00:08 schrieb Bill Cole:
I don't believe so and there's no reason to. CNAME records trump all DNS
record types for a name so it may be usually unwise to have a CNAME
record for a name that is used in email address domain parts, but it
isn't inherently wrong.
A name which is reso
11 matches
Mail list logo
