On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 21:51 -0800, Bijayant wrote:
> 2) What should I do to whitelist the senders because, if I will whitelist
> the senders then it will not check for the Spam and the mail will passed
> without the spam TAG.
>
I have a database containing an automatically built list of everybody
o simulate the scenario for SPF and found that SA added one
test like "X-Spam-Status: SPF_NEUTRAL=1.069". When I greped this like
grep -ilr "SPF_NEUTRAL" /etc/mail/spamassassin/*, I found nothing.
1) So, how could I start increase/decrease the scores based on SPF results
On Wed, December 31, 2008 06:29, Bijayant wrote:
>
> From all the discussions and reading all the replies in this thread
> I have understood many things like
> 1) We use smtp-auth for sending the mails. So, I can reject all
> mails which are not generating from my mail server,
reject sender domai
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 21:30 -0800, Bijayant wrote:
> >From all the discussions and reading all the replies in this thread I have
> understood many things like
> 1) We use smtp-auth for sending the mails. So, I can reject all mails which
> are not generating from my mail server, right? This will be
se SPF records to see if undeliverable mail
>> has a forged sender address. If so, they won't send a rejection slip
>> since that would go to the wrong place. Such rejection slips are known
>> as 'backscatter' and are a real annoyance, so be kind to other mail
>> users and set up an SPF record for your domain. There are wizards and
>> test tools to help you create a valid record here:
>> http://www.kitterman.com/spf/validate.html
>>
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Implementing-SPF-tp21216090p21228928.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ince that would go to the wrong place. Such rejection slips are known
> as 'backscatter' and are a real annoyance, so be kind to other mail
> users and set up an SPF record for your domain. There are wizards and
> test tools to help you create a valid record here:
> http://www.kitterman.com/spf/validate.html
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Implementing-SPF-tp21216090p21227529.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ince that would go to the wrong place. Such rejection slips are known
> as 'backscatter' and are a real annoyance, so be kind to other mail
> users and set up an SPF record for your domain. There are wizards and
> test tools to help you create a valid record here:
> http://www.kitterman.com/spf/validate.html
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Implementing-SPF-tp21216090p21227527.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Kai Schaetzl a écrit :
>> good planning is
>> needed
>
> This is a platitude.
In theory, yes. In practice, not always...
> And I don't mean that rude.
>
> Kai
>
> good planning is
> needed
This is a platitude. And I don't mean that rude.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Kai Schaetzl a écrit :
> Mouss wrote on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:01:12 +0100:
>
>> the problem is
>
> Frankly, problems are there to be overcome. It depends on what is more
> painful, the current implementation or the way to change it.
>
I am not saying one shouldn't do it. just saying that good pl
> On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 13:38 +, Ned Slider wrote:
> > Restrict $mynetworks to only allow 127.0.0.0/8 so anyone *not* on
> > localhost *has* to authenticate.
On 30.12.08 19:32, ram wrote:
> And what if your Boss ( or your client ) yells at you , "How dare my
> mails get rejected at your ser
Mouss wrote on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:01:12 +0100:
> the problem is
Frankly, problems are there to be overcome. It depends on what is more
painful, the current implementation or the way to change it.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.cona
Kai Schaetzl a écrit :
> Ram wrote on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:32:16 +0530:
>
>> "I always used my Outlook
>
> and Outlook always supported SMTP AUTH. Even grandgrandmothers can use it.
> It's a standard procedure. So, please stop exaggerating.
>
the problem is that users have long forgotten, how t
Ram wrote on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:32:16 +0530:
> "I always used my Outlook
and Outlook always supported SMTP AUTH. Even grandgrandmothers can use it.
It's a standard procedure. So, please stop exaggerating.
> And Worse, there are still some archaic smtp relay servers in use that
> dont support
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 15:36 +0100, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 December 2008 12:44:09 Bijayant wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am a newbie so please excuse me if its a very silly question. I have been
> > searching the forums and Internet about my query but could not found
> > satisfacto
On Tuesday 30 December 2008 12:44:09 Bijayant wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am a newbie so please excuse me if its a very silly question. I have been
> searching the forums and Internet about my query but could not found
> satisfactory answer. I am using Postfix+amavisd-new+spam-assassin on my
> mail server.
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 13:38 +, Ned Slider wrote:
> ram wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 04:11 -0800, Bijayant wrote:
> >> Thanks, but I do not want to reject those mails.
> > Why not?
>
> I agree - this is by far the simplest method of tackling this problem.
> SPF is meant as a mechanism f
Bijayant a écrit :
>>
>> It means that if the mails are not SPAM it will not add the headers or it
>> will not check for SPF.
it will always add SPF headers when appropriate. this has nothing to do
with the fact that the message is spam or not.
The message that I am replying to has:
X-Spam-Statu
ram wrote:
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 04:11 -0800, Bijayant wrote:
Thanks, but I do not want to reject those mails.
Why not?
I agree - this is by far the simplest method of tackling this problem.
SPF is meant as a mechanism for *others* to block mail spoofed from your
domain.
The only reaso
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 04:11 -0800, Bijayant wrote:
> Thanks, but I do not want to reject those mails.
Why not?
The only reason I see is that legitimate senders also send to the same
mail server. Get them to use smtp-auth and send the messages.
(I know its easier said than done )
> I wan
On Tue, December 30, 2008 14:00, Bijayant wrote:
>> To insert SPF headers so that SA can understand that it has to
>> apply SPF tests.
no you must NOT insert any header at all in mta
all you need to do is tell spamassassin what envelope header your
mta use for postfix i do this
put this in a f
he spam you
> are talking about.
>
>
> then create a meta rule that combines SPF fail _and_ the fact that the
> sender is in your domain. (don't simply increase the scores of the SPF
> test).
>
> It means that if the mails are not SPAM it will not add the h
Bijayant a écrit :
>
> But if a genuine sender who does not have SPF records might gets blocked,
> right? Or I misunderstood something.
the config I posted blocks mail claiming to be from _your_ domain. it
has nothing to do with SPF. I don't implement SPF and the checks won't
block me.
>>
>> I a
> tests.
>
> How spam-assassin will understand that it has to do SPF checks or SA will
> run the SPF checks for every mails.
> Hope I am clear on my question.
> --
> Benny Pedersen
> Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
>
>
>
--
View this
Bijayant a écrit :
> Thanks, but I do not want to reject those mails.
you can replace "REJECT" with "PREPEND X-Suspected: blah blah" and use
this in an SA rule. but it looks like you really want SPF ;-p
> I want only some scores to be added if it fails the SPF test.
> So, should I have to config
On Tue, December 30, 2008 13:11, Bijayant wrote:
> Thanks, but I do not want to reject those mails.
but you should
> I want only some scores to be added if it fails the SPF test.
default in spamassassin if spf fails, you can add more to the
default score if you want it, but spf fails mail mostl
> PS. do not put the check_sender_access before reject_unauth_destination.
>
> if you have questions regarding this, post on the postfix-users list.
>
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Implementing-SPF-tp21216090p21216424.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Bijayant a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I am a newbie so please excuse me if its a very silly question. I have been
> searching the forums and Internet about my query but could not found
> satisfactory answer. I am using Postfix+amavisd-new+spam-assassin on my mail
> server. We get many spam mails from our
://www.nabble.com/Implementing-SPF-tp21216090p21216090.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
29 matches
Mail list logo
