> Are there any SA methods that allow verification of the ‘sender’ of an email ?
>
> I am aware of SPF which can confirm that a host at ip address x.x.x.x is
> authorized to send mail as from domain “A”, but how about a means to
> confirm that [EMAIL PROTECTED] actually is a real user before
BTW, Mulberry (what I use) lets me "reply" to a message then select
"Create new message", which effectively deletes the References header
(and body and subject) from the new message while maintaining the
addressing information. Highly recommended.
And if you did choose 'reply' but then change the s
--On Saturday, September 25, 2004 12:47:20 -0400 David Brodbeck <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
And, just as a note, the latest ExiScan is 27, for Exim 4.42.
Is that in the ports tree yet? I know they've been under a freeze
for a while now.
Yep, that's the current port versions.
-Pat
--On Saturday, September 25, 2004 08:59:03 +0200 Mathieu Arnold <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
+-Le 24/09/2004 18:20 -0700, Pat Lashley a dit :
| SA 3.0 should probably be a separate port rather than an update
| to the existing SA port; due to the lack of backwards compatability
| in the API
--On Saturday, September 25, 2004 00:21:44 -0400 David Brodbeck <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
For example, it would break the Exim port which by
default includes the ExiScan patches. (The Exim port would still
build; but the SpamAssassin support would fail at run time.)
Sure about that? I'm running
--On Friday, September 24, 2004 04:37:05 -0400 "Dan Mahoney, System Admin" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've gotten a Makefile mostly tuned for sa3, based on the
FreeBSD port makefile for 2.64. I've added most of the
dependencies, but FreeBSD doesn't have ports for Net::SMTP
or IP::Country::Fast, s
--On Wednesday, September 15, 2004 00:34:41 -0400 Jeff Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Your response is exactly why I used the term. I, and apparently
a few others, do not want to pre-sort our mail into folders but
like to work with a list of mail as received and dispose of the
mail based upon the
--On Tuesday, September 14, 2004 16:26:54 -0400 Jim Maul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Quoting Jeff Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I certainly agree with a simple [SA} prefix so that the SA emails don't get
lost and deleted with all the other stuff I get. However, this came up a
few months ago and the SA
