On 7/27/23 6:25 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I use spamass-milter on my system and amavisd-milter on other systems
especially to be able to reject spam at SMTP time. Definitely a good thing.
:-)
You just should not use it for "outgoing" mail from your clients, so
they don't complain abou
>
> >> I assume that you mean so that your outbound SMTP server is actually
> >> authorized in some capacity and fall under "all". Is that correct?
>
> ... and does NOT dall under "all".
>
> On 27.07.23 08:11, Marc wrote:
> >indeed afaik -all is all authorized
>
> pardon me? -all means everyon
I assume that you mean so that your outbound SMTP server is actually
authorized in some capacity and fall under "all". Is that correct?
... and does NOT dall under "all".
On 27.07.23 08:11, Marc wrote:
indeed afaik -all is all authorized
pardon me? -all means everyone except previously ment
On 7/26/23 2:34 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
milters should not be spam scanners, spamassassin is better
On 26.07.23 13:32, Grant Taylor via users wrote:
{spamass-milter,milter-spamc} combined with SpamAssassin cause me to
question the veracity of that statement.
+1
Milter implies doing the fi
Marc skrev den 2023-07-27 09:48:
The oldest mail server log I can find is from mx-in-08 sadly even that
one is only from 2005 but confirms we were using it then, quite a bit
longer than 2014 :P
Why retire? To go fishing or so? I think GDPR even prohibits keeping
very old log files, if there is
On 27/07/2023 18:11, Marc wrote:
I am always using -all. I honestly can't think of a good argument to
use anything else.
I agree.
It's my belief that ~all is only useful for a "production entry test
phase", once your happy, move to -all
Like DMARC's p=none it's a "getting it going" method
On 27/07/2023 17:48, Marc wrote:
The oldest mail server log I can find is from mx-in-08 sadly even that
one is only from 2005 but confirms we were using it then, quite a bit
longer than 2014 :P
Why retire? To go fishing or so? I think GDPR even prohibits keeping
very old log files, if there i
>
> I assume that you mean so that your outbound SMTP server is actually
> authorized in some capacity and fall under "all". Is that correct?
indeed afaik -all is all authorized
> > When you configure your spf your result is either pass, softfail or
> fail
> > I think we can agree that a correc
>
> The oldest mail server log I can find is from mx-in-08 sadly even that
> one is only from 2005 but confirms we were using it then, quite a bit
> longer than 2014 :P
>
Why retire? To go fishing or so? I think GDPR even prohibits keeping very old
log files, if there is no specific reason for
On 27/07/2023 13:43, Bill Cole wrote:
No, SPF pre dates that, 1998 or there abouts if my ageing memory serves
me
It's failing... :)
SPF originated with an idea of Gordon Fecyk, first written up AFTER he
left MAPS in 2001. First ID calling it SPF would have been 2003 or so.
A brief refresher
On 2023-07-26 at 23:01:11 UTC-0400 (Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:01:11 +1000)
Noel Butler
is rumored to have said:
On 27/07/2023 10:20, Matija Nalis wrote:
[...]
Also, 1990s? Weren't first SPF-alike ideas drafted first time in
early-mid 2000s, and SPF itself not published as *proposed* IETF
standard u
On 27/07/2023 10:20, Matija Nalis wrote:
mailing lists have been smart enough for over 20 years to rewrite
sender and
not appear as a basic forwarder - which are you are correct, however
there
are forwarding abilities to rewrite sender which avoids this, its been
15
years or more since I've u
On 7/26/23 7:20 PM, Matija Nalis wrote:
I'd appreciate more civil expressions of disagreement
+1
I personally know several people who still use procmail today, sooo...
+1
That at least I can attest is not always the case (I still see
systems with custom sendmail.cf which nobody dares to t
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 07:11:59AM +1000, Noel Butler wrote:
> On 27/07/2023 05:09, Matija Nalis wrote:
>
> > Any SPF, no matter how correctly configured, will lead to false
> > positives in some cases (e.g. encoutering mailing list
>
> B.S.
I'd appreciate more civil expressions of disagreemen
On 7/26/23 2:09 PM, Matija Nalis wrote:
Only way to make SPF never incorrectly fail/softwail is to use "+all",
but that kind of kills its point :-)
I question the veracity of that.
Is SPF failing to perform it's intended function if an unauthorized
server is blocked from sending email with an
On 7/26/23 1:44 PM, Marc wrote:
so your ip does not generate a softfail or fail
I assume that you mean so that your outbound SMTP server is actually
authorized in some capacity and fall under "all". Is that correct?
When you configure your spf your result is either pass, softfail or fail
I
On 27/07/2023 05:09, Matija Nalis wrote:
Any SPF, no matter how correctly configured, will lead to false
positives in some cases (e.g. encoutering mailing list
B.S.
mailing lists have been smart enough for over 20 years to rewrite sender
and not appear as a basic forwarder - which are you are
> > >
> > > What does "correctly setup SPF" mean to you?
> >
> > so your ip does not generate a softfail or fail
>
> Only way to make SPF never incorrectly fail/softwail is to use "+all",
> but that kind of kills its point :-)
+all is in pass
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4408#page-8
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 06:44:32PM +, Marc wrote:
> > At the risk of starting a flame war...
> >
> > What does "correctly setup SPF" mean to you?
>
> so your ip does not generate a softfail or fail
Only way to make SPF never incorrectly fail/softwail is to use "+all",
but that kind of kill
> At the risk of starting a flame war...
>
> What does "correctly setup SPF" mean to you?
so your ip does not generate a softfail or fail
> What makes your opinion better than someone else's opinion that differs?
> (I take it for granted that someone will have a differing opinion.)
When you c
On 7/26/23 2:34 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
milters should not be spam scanners, spamassassin is better
{spamass-milter,milter-spamc} combined with SpamAssassin cause me to
question the veracity of that statement.
Milter implies doing the filtering during the SMTP transaction. I
consider the
On 7/26/23 1:44 AM, Marc wrote:
asking them to correctly setup spf is mostly enough.
At the risk of starting a flame war...
What does "correctly setup SPF" mean to you?
What makes your opinion better than someone else's opinion that differs?
(I take it for granted that someone will have a d
On 26/07/2023 17:34, Benny Pedersen wrote:
milters should not be spam scanners, spamassassin is better
SA is perl, perl is faster and better resource nice than python garbage,
but perl is still slow compared to C, that is why milters will win out
everytime.
milter-regex is also light and s
Marc skrev den 2023-07-26 08:44:
blocklist_from *@gmail.com
welcomelist_auth *@gmail.com
makes it perfect :)
if both dkim and spf is pass, it will get neutral scores
I found this to be not sufficient (assuming the above pass is ~all).
gmail has spf ~all.
set softfail score to 100, solved
>
> blocklist_from *@gmail.com
> welcomelist_auth *@gmail.com
>
> makes it perfect :)
>
> if both dkim and spf is pass, it will get neutral scores
>
I found this to be not sufficient (assuming the above pass is ~all). gmail has
spf ~all.
So I have made an exception for the google network in
J Doe writes:
> I am currently using SpamAssassin 4.0.0 and I had a question on how I
> can ensure that any e-mail from @gmail.com has a valid SPF and DKIM
> signature.
You should phrase what you want more carefully. What I think you said
is:
I want that if mail comes in with a From: of *@gm
J Doe skrev den 2023-07-26 01:52:
Thanks for your reply - perfect: welcomelist_auth is exactly what I
was looking for!
blocklist_from *@gmail.com
welcomelist_auth *@gmail.com
makes it perfect :)
if both dkim and spf is pass, it will get neutral scores
but if fail it will get spamscored, tha
If you do that you will guarantee yourself to get bunches of spam that might
otherwise be tagged by SA.
the "welcomelist" mechanism says:
Anybody who matches this criteria we consider strongly not to be spam
(regardless of how spammy all the other metrics may say it is).
You should "welco
On 2023-07-25 19:39, Benny Pedersen wrote:
J Doe skrev den 2023-07-26 01:20:
its a one liner with welcomelist_auth
Hi Benny,
Thanks for your reply - perfect: welcomelist_auth is exactly what I was
looking for!
- J
J Doe skrev den 2023-07-26 01:20:
I am currently using SpamAssassin 4.0.0 and I had a question on how I
can ensure that any e-mail from @gmail.com has a valid SPF and DKIM
signature.
incorrect questions gives incorrect answers
I am aware that the following can be easily fooled, because it is
Hi,
I am currently using SpamAssassin 4.0.0 and I had a question on how I
can ensure that any e-mail from @gmail.com has a valid SPF and DKIM
signature.
I am aware that the following can be easily fooled, because it is not
checking SPF and DKIM:
welcomelist_from *@gmail.com
... so to
31 matches
Mail list logo
