I believe we are in solid agreement, a few notes below explaining how...
On 2024-04-14 at 08:00:19 UTC-0400 (Sun, 14 Apr 2024 08:00:19 -0400)
Greg Troxel
is rumored to have said:
> Bill Cole writes:
>
>> On 2024-04-12 at 18:56:15 UTC-0400 (Fri, 12 Apr 2024 18:56:15 -0400)
>> Greg Troxel
>>
Bill Cole writes:
> On 2024-04-12 at 18:56:15 UTC-0400 (Fri, 12 Apr 2024 18:56:15 -0400)
> Greg Troxel
>
>> Bill Cole writes:
>>
>>> 1. We serve our users: receivers, not senders. Senders claiming FPs
>>> need the support of a corroborating would-be receiver.
>>
>> Agreed. Or maybe we take req
Bill Cole skrev den 2024-04-13 19:42:
score USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL -2
score USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL -2
By default those each score -7.5 so a doubly-confirmed message gets the
same insane -15 as a legacy listing (def_whitelist_from_rcvd) that
doesn't require authentication. No such listings still exis
On 2024-04-12 at 19:26:59 UTC-0400 (Fri, 12 Apr 2024 16:26:59 -0700)
jdow
is rumored to have said:
> On 20240412 16:14:44, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> jdow writes:
>>
>>> One pesky detail still exists. There is a very broad fuzzy area where
>>> my spam is your ham and vice versa. You could probably dr
On 2024-04-12 at 19:01:21 UTC-0400 (Fri, 12 Apr 2024 19:01:21 -0400)
Greg Troxel
is rumored to have said:
> Also, I'm not sure you said this, but I would say:
>
>default whitelist is dkim only
No. Existing practice is that we trust both DKIM and SPF, and I think that's
fine.
There are no u
On 2024-04-12 at 18:56:15 UTC-0400 (Fri, 12 Apr 2024 18:56:15 -0400)
Greg Troxel
is rumored to have said:
> I see it very slightly differently, but mostly agree
>
> Bill Cole writes:
>
>> 1. We serve our users: receivers, not senders. Senders claiming FPs
>> need the support of a corroborating w
On 20240412 16:14:44, Greg Troxel wrote:
jdow writes:
One pesky detail still exists. There is a very broad fuzzy area where
my spam is your ham and vice versa. You could probably drive yourself
to an early grave trying to get the perfect Bayes training plus
perfect rule set.
spam is bulk and
jdow writes:
> One pesky detail still exists. There is a very broad fuzzy area where
> my spam is your ham and vice versa. You could probably drive yourself
> to an early grave trying to get the perfect Bayes training plus
> perfect rule set.
spam is bulk and unsolicited. So yes the same messa
On 20240412 15:56:15, Greg Troxel wrote:
I see it very slightly differently, but mostly agree
Bill Cole writes:
1. We serve our users: receivers, not senders. Senders claiming FPs
need the support of a corroborating would-be receiver.
Agreed. Or maybe we take requests to add only from recei
Also, I'm not sure you said this, but I would say:
default whitelist is dkim only
This means
All existing entries are converted to dkim as well as we can, not
worrying if they break. We'll prune ones that don't work as dkim,
and add a signing domain as we figure it out, as
I see it very slightly differently, but mostly agree
Bill Cole writes:
> 1. We serve our users: receivers, not senders. Senders claiming FPs
> need the support of a corroborating would-be receiver.
Agreed. Or maybe we take requests to add only from receivers.
> 2. If senders have FPs on objec
11 matches
Mail list logo
