Thanks for the tip! I didn't know how to debug that stuff. Here's what
happens with a spammer faking one of my own domains:
>spamd[21654]: spf: query for
>isabelle.2...@nro.ca/41.203.191.125/!41.203.191.125!: result: permerror,
>comment: , text: Included domain 'srs.bis.na.blackberry.com' has no
Thanks for the tip! I didn't know how to debug that stuff. Here's what
happens with a spammer faking one of my own domains:
>spamd[21654]: spf: query for
>isabelle.2...@nro.ca/41.203.191.125/!41.203.191.125!: result: permerror,
>comment: , text: Included domain 'srs.bis.na.blackberry.com' has no
On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 10:33:39 -0400
spamassas...@nro.ca wrote:
> Hi. I'm getting T_SPF_PERMERROR extremely often. Not exclusively, but
> especially when spammers are faking my own domain names.
>
> Here's an example from the good old xerox copier spam:
>
> From cop...@nro.ca Fri May 26 08:26:18
Hi. I'm getting T_SPF_PERMERROR extremely often. Not exclusively, but
especially when spammers are faking my own domain names.
Here's an example from the good old xerox copier spam:
From cop...@nro.ca Fri May 26 08:26:18 2017
Return-Path:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28)
On 6/1/2017 7:31 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Interesting. I wonder how that affects RFC-2822 (et. al.) headers, and
specifically, the X-Spam-* headers that SA emits?
RFC 6648 is a best practice and "deprecates the convention for newly
defined parameters with textual (as opposed to numerical) names
Ignore them. Focus on RFC compliant headers and reject anything that fails.
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 12:14 AM, Loren Wilton wrote: I
see I have received several new spam messages today from what looks (to
me) like a new tool. Admittedly these three were all caught as s
