Yes- I would rather have correct results than just results.
Okay, so the problem is with my MTA moving the Return-Path header
below the Received headers. It's breaking spamassassin's ability to
check perfectly compliant SPF records. I'm using stock versions of
sendmail 8.13 on all my boxe
Yes- I would rather have correct results than just results.
Okay, so the problem is with my MTA moving the Return-Path header below
the Received headers. It's breaking spamassassin's ability to check
perfectly compliant SPF records. I'm using stock versions of sendmail
8.13 on all my boxes, so
Ben Lentz wrote:
_You_ are _welcome_.
Get it moved? - Hmmm... Ala-kazamm! - Oh, that didn't work. Okay, so
magic isn't going to get it moved, and I'm all out of ideas.
I can only suggest starting another thread here or "somewhere else
applicable" that asks "this is the software I'm using, wh
Heh, That was supposed to be a joke; not very funny, I guess.
- Original Message -
*From:* Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Sent:* 09/29/2005 02:57:10 PM
*To:* users@spamassassin.apache.org
*Subject:* SPF and Upgrade to SA 3.1
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 02:47:05PM -0400, Ben Lentz wr
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 02:47:05PM -0400, Ben Lentz wrote:
> SPF stuff. Technology vendors everywhere are telling me that if I
> implement SPF and DK that the entire plannet will be spam free.
Just FWIW:
Those technology vendors are confused. Neither SPF nor DK are anti-spam
technologies. They'
_You_ are _welcome_.
Get it moved? - Hmmm... Ala-kazamm! - Oh, that didn't work. Okay, so
magic isn't going to get it moved, and I'm all out of ideas.
I still don't understand why I used to get SPF_HELO_PASSes with 3.0.4
and I don't with 3.1. The world hasn't changed, just my SA version. I
g
Ben Lentz wrote:
Here you go, the file has been _attached_.
_thanks_. ;)
The return-path header is in the wrong spot. It should be the very
first line of the message. Get it moved and you'll be set.
Daryl
Uh, I believe it did. The test.eml file I attached was 2733 bytes long.
The body portion of the email read "test", only 4 bytes by my count. The
remainder of data is all headers.
I'm hoping you're opening it in a text editor, and not a mail client.
- Original Message -
*From:* <[EMAIL
Ben Lentz wrote:
> Here you go, the file has been _attached_.
The version you attach has no headers.
--
Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com Software Engineer
Here you go, the file has been _attached_.
- Original Message -
*From:* "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Sent:* 09/29/2005 12:32:08 PM
*To:* Ben Lentz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Cc:* users@spamassassin.apache.org
*Subject:* SPF and Upgrade to SA 3.1
Ben Lentz wrote:
I'm lost. The
Ben Lentz wrote:
I'm lost. The email I received contains the header: "Return-Path:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]", so why would it be saying "spf: cannot get
Envelope-From, cannot use SPF"?
Usually it's a case of the header not being present during processing
and being added afterward. If it's present w
I'm lost. The email I received contains the header: "Return-Path:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]", so why would it be saying "spf: cannot get
Envelope-From, cannot use SPF"?
I appreciate your patience. What appeared to be something that broke in
a SA version upgrade is not looking more like a FUBAR in my
Ben Lentz wrote:
Okay, I've added
always_trust_envelope_sender 1
trusted_networks 10.1.0.0/16
trusted_networks 205.246.7.107
and restarted. Still not acknoledgement that SPF is working for
gmail.com. SPF-based whitelisting might be great, but at this point I'm
still not confident that SPF is w
Okay, I've added
always_trust_envelope_sender 1
trusted_networks 10.1.0.0/16
trusted_networks 205.246.7.107
and restarted. Still not acknoledgement that SPF is working for
gmail.com. SPF-based whitelisting might be great, but at this point I'm
still not confident that SPF is working for me.
H
Ben Lentz wrote:
Thanks for the info. I just added "always_trust_envelope_sender 1" to my
local.cf and restarted. I then resent an email from gmail and still got
no SPF. So, that didn't solve my problem.
Am I incorrectly implimenting the standard? Do I need my TXT record to
be located at IN T
Thanks for the info. I just added "always_trust_envelope_sender 1" to my
local.cf and restarted. I then resent an email from gmail and still got
no SPF. So, that didn't solve my problem.
Am I incorrectly implimenting the standard? Do I need my TXT record to
be located at IN TXT smtp.channing-b
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> SPF has NOTHING to do with the HELO/EHLO info.
>
> Actually it does.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02.txt
Oops, I'm wrong.
But not entirely.
Selected quotations from the above draft:
SPF clients MUST c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SPF has NOTHING to do with the HELO/EHLO info.
Actually it does.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02.txt
Daryl
Ben Lentz wrote:
The message is sent from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
but shows up with no SPF information. Are you saying that the SPF
records are supposed to be published along with the sending mail
server's A record instead of with the domain? Like if the MX for
channing-bete.com
Ben Lentz wrote:
> The message is sent from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] but shows up with no SPF information. Are
> you saying that the SPF
> records are supposed to be published along with the sending mail
> server's A record instead of with the domain? Like if the MX for
> channing-
The message is sent from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
but shows up with no SPF information. Are you saying that the SPF
records are supposed to be published along with the sending mail
server's A record instead of with the domain? Like if the MX for
channing-bete.com was smtp.channing
21 matches
Mail list logo
