> On Thu, June 26, 2008 16:39, Jost Krieger wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 01:02:18AM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> >> On Wed, June 25, 2008 23:39, Bob Proulx wrote:
> >> > By what method did you recieve that URL?
> >> dsn bounce
> > Could you send the whole DSN, please?
On 26.06.08 19:31, Be
On Thu, June 26, 2008 16:39, Jost Krieger wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 01:02:18AM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> On Wed, June 25, 2008 23:39, Bob Proulx wrote:
>> > By what method did you recieve that URL?
>> dsn bounce
> Could you send the whole DSN, please?
i deleted it, but see the opensp
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 01:02:18AM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> On Wed, June 25, 2008 23:39, Bob Proulx wrote:
>
> > By what method did you recieve that URL?
>
> dsn bounce
Could you send the whole DSN, please?
My guess is someone's mail setup on this list is re-routing mails by Header
"To
On Thu, June 26, 2008 00:49, Jo Rhett wrote:
> Some person is doing SPF checks against the header address instead of
> the envelope address.
pypolicyd-spf does work, but spf in spamassassin can use wrongly From:
maybe i need to commit that bug :(
with is not really a bug but a config error :(
On Wed, June 25, 2008 23:39, Bob Proulx wrote:
> By what method did you recieve that URL?
dsn bounce
> Note that I also have SPF set up for my domain.
good, just use your own domain and not my ip ranges its ok :-)
> Therefore on the surface I would expect to see the same behavior
> that you a
On Jun 25, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
What did you do differently between this message and the one that was
rejected? Somehow you routed the other message through an
unauthorized route. It is specifically configured to be rejected by
your own domain configuration. Routine mail through
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> i did not send that msg
> ...
> maillist owner did not make any faults here, one of the list members have
> bad mta setup :(
By what method did you recieve that URL?
Note that I also have SPF set up for my domain. Therefore on the
surface I would expect to see the same be
On Wed, June 25, 2008 22:53, Bob Proulx wrote:
> What did you do differently between this message and the one that was
> rejected?
i did not send that msg
> Somehow you routed the other message through an unauthorized route.
nope
> It is specifically configured to be rejected by your own doma
McDonald, Dan wrote:
From: Bob Proulx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Benny Pedersen wrote:
http://www.openspf.org/Why?id=me%40junc.org&ip=194.116.240.69&receiver=athena.apache.org
On that page it says:
athena.apache.org received a message from mx.grupointercom.com
(194.116.240.6
From: Bob Proulx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> http://www.openspf.org/Why?id=me%40junc.org&ip=194.116.240.69&receiver=athena.apache.org
>
>On that page it says:
>
> athena.apache.org received a message from mx.grupointercom.com
> (194.116.240.69) that claimed an envelope s
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> http://www.openspf.org/Why?id=me%40junc.org&ip=194.116.240.69&receiver=athena.apache.org
On that page it says:
athena.apache.org received a message from mx.grupointercom.com
(194.116.240.69) that claimed an envelope sender address of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However, the do
11 matches
Mail list logo
