Ok, this horse is not only dead, but it's been totally pulverized. Can
we now please kill this ridiculously drawn-out thread - or maybe it can
be taken off-line by those that wish to continue this diatribe?
Thanks!
Bill
On 6-May-2009, at 08:50, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Mark wrote:
Only several posts ago you had never even heard of SMTP AUTH
I mentioned it in my original post. But let's just ignore this small
factual error and continue
No you didn't. The string 'auth' does not ap
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Mike Cardwell wrote:
"I have an idea which involves deleting every third character of your email
to make it route over the Internet faster. What do you think?"
People wouldn't respond with, "That's a bad idea because x", they'd respond
with "Don't be stupid", and "That's a cr
Charles Gregory wrote:
Okay, enough with the righteous indignation already.
You know, if people put as much effort into my idea as they have into
'putting me in my place', there could be some really great discussions.
Sigh...
Granted. And upon being informed of this new development, I indi
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Mark wrote:
Okay, enough with the righteous indignation already.
You know, if people put as much effort into my idea as they have into
'putting me in my place', there could be some really great discussions.
Sigh...
Only several posts ago you had never even heard of SMTP
John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
I can't speak for others, but this is one reason why I haven't given
my opinions about your proposed PSPF.
+1.
If this OT discussion is going to get discourteous, please take it
somewhere more appropriate.
+1
If it were to becom
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
I can't speak for others, but this is one reason why I haven't given my
opinions about your proposed PSPF.
+1.
If this OT discussion is going to get discourteous, please take it
somewhere more appropriate.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
Charles Gregory wrote:
Please, stop the PSPF discussions and go implement something that will
work without changing the whole internet
LOL! Please stop discussing ideas?
To be fair, this is the SpamAssassin users list. The purpose if this
list isn't the discussion about the validity of ide
Matus UHLAR - fantomas 5.5.'09, 8:55:
> > Strictly speaking, getting them to use it consistently and properly will
> > be MORE difficult,
> more difficult than what?
I parsed it as him stating that getting users to use his proposed PSPF will be
more difficult than getting them to use athent
-Original Message-
From: Charles Gregory [mailto:cgreg...@hwcn.org]
Sent: dinsdag 5 mei 2009 22:40
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Personal SPF
> > Defining personalised SPF would cause much more work and troubles for
> > users. Yes, apparently not for you.
>
Footnote: Just had one of my users report the same problem on another
list. So my suspicion that this is on *my* server seems well-founded...
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
OT : Apologies if I miss any replies to my posts. But they are getting lost
in a pile of repeats
For s
OT : Apologies if I miss any replies to my posts. But they are getting
lost in a pile of repeats
For some reason I am getting many multiple copies of all the
posts from this mailing list. If the list admin is listening in,
would he/she be kind enough to check SMTP logs for connections to
'
On Tue, 5 May 2009, LuKreme wrote:
> For what it's worth I also think this personal SPF concept is a terrible
> idea with zero chance of taking off. And I actually *like* normal SPF.
Well, it would be nice if you offered some reasons *why* you feel this way.
I did in the portion of the message
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Defining personalised SPF would cause much more work and troubles for
users. Yes, apparently not for you.
Everything is "more work". Question is, would it be WORTH it?
Many people responded this thread saying it's bad idea.
To date, not coun
LuKreme wrote:
For what it's worth I also think this personal SPF concept is a
terrible idea with zero chance of taking off. And I actually *like*
normal SPF.
Well, it would be nice if you offered some reasons *why* you feel this
way.
I did in the portion of the message you snipped.
"If y
On 5-May-2009, at 08:39, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Mike Cardwell wrote:
For what it's worth I also think this personal SPF concept is a
terrible idea with zero chance of taking off. And I actually *like*
normal SPF.
Well, it would be nice if you offered some reasons *why* y
Welcome to English 101.
Configuring the mail account in their MUA independently on their
internet connection is much easier than changing SMTP server every
time they connect to other network.
Poster is saying it is easier to setup port 587 in MUA instead of
configuring PSPF
Thi
> On Tue, 5 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> On 04.05.09 16:43, Charles Gregory wrote:
>>> Strictly speaking, getting them to use it consistently and properly will
>>> be MORE difficult,
>> more difficult than what? More difficult than discussing it here or more
>> difficult than implemen
> On Tue, 5 May 2009, Mike Cardwell wrote:
>> For what it's worth I also think this personal SPF concept is a
>> terrible idea with zero chance of taking off. And I actually *like*
>> normal SPF.
On 05.05.09 10:39, Charles Gregory wrote:
> Well, it would be nice if you offered some reasons *why*
>> On 04.05.09 10:31, Charles Gregory wrote:
>>> > OUR mail server *requires* that a user be connected via our dialups.
>>> Configuring the mail account in their MUA independently on their internet
>>> connection is much easier than changing SMTP server every time they
>>> connect to other netw
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
On 04.05.09 10:31, Charles Gregory wrote:
> OUR mail server *requires* that a user be connected via our dialups.
Configuring the mail account in their MUA independently on their internet
connection is much easier than changing SMTP server every time t
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Mike Cardwell wrote:
For what it's worth I also think this personal SPF concept is a terrible
idea with zero chance of taking off. And I actually *like* normal SPF.
Well, it would be nice if you offered some reasons *why* you feel this
way. I said up front that I had a stro
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 04.05.09 16:43, Charles Gregory wrote:
Strictly speaking, getting them to use it consistently and properly will
be MORE difficult,
more difficult than what? More difficult than discussing it here or more
difficult than implementing PSPF based
> On Mon, 4 May 2009, LuKreme wrote:
>> This is what port 587 is *for*. This is what SASL authentication is *for*.
On 05.05.09 09:25, Charles Gregory wrote:
> H. Quick (dumb) question. If I tell my users to click the little
> check box in a mail client (Outlook Express or Thunderbird) that sa
On Mon, 4 May 2009, LuKreme wrote:
This is what port 587 is *for*. This is what SASL authentication is *for*.
H. Quick (dumb) question. If I tell my users to click the little check
box in a mail client (Outlook Express or Thunderbird) that says "use SMTP
authentication", does it automatic
On Tue, May 5, 2009 10:33, Mike Cardwell wrote:
>> Please, stop the PSPF discussions and go implement something that will
>> work without changing the whole internet
> For what it's worth I also think this personal SPF concept is a terrible
> idea with zero chance of taking off. And I actually *li
On 04.05.09 10:31, Charles Gregory wrote:
>> OUR mail server *requires* that a user be connected via our dialups.
[...]
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Configuring the mail account in their MUA independently on their internet
connection is much easier than changing SMTP server every time they co
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Please, stop the PSPF discussions and go implement something that will
work without changing the whole internet
For what it's worth I also think this personal SPF concept is a terrible
idea with zero chance of taking off. And I actually *like* normal SPF.
--
Mi
> On Mon, 4 May 2009, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
>> Why do you think it would be easier to get those of your users that
>> send through other servers to publish a personal SPF record with
>> correct information about the external IP address of the outgoing relay
>> they use than it would be to get th
On 4-May-2009, at 09:40, Charles Gregory wrote:
Yes, but also that the user must be connected to our dialup to gain
'relay' access to our mail server. If someone, even one of our legit
users, is on a DSL connection, then they *cannot* send mail through
our server. They must use the server co
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
Why do you think it would be easier to get those of your users that send
through other servers to publish a personal SPF record with correct
information about the external IP address of the outgoing relay they use than
it would be to get then to use SMT
Charles Gregory wrote:
Proposal: "Personal SPF" - A DNS-based lookup system to allow individual
sender's of e-mail to publish a *personal* SPF record within the context
of their domain's SPF records, that would identify an IP or range of
IP's which they would be 'stating' are the only possible
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
OUR mail server *requires* that a user be connected via our dialups.
what do you mean? Users connected by your dialups can only be connected to
your mail server?
Yes, but also that the user must be connected to our dialup to gain
'relay' acces
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 30.04.09 14:24, Charles Gregory wrote:
Proposal: "Personal SPF" - A DNS-based lookup system to allow individual
sender's of e-mail to publish a *personal* SPF record within the context
of their domain's SPF records, that would identify an IP o
>> On 30.04.09 14:24, Charles Gregory wrote:
>>> Proposal: "Personal SPF" - A DNS-based lookup system to allow individual
>>> sender's of e-mail to publish a *personal* SPF record within the context
>>> of their domain's SPF records, that would identify an IP or range of IP's
>>> which they would b
On 30.04.09 14:24, Charles Gregory wrote:
> Proposal: "Personal SPF" - A DNS-based lookup system to allow individual
> sender's of e-mail to publish a *personal* SPF record within the context
> of their domain's SPF records, that would identify an IP or range of IP's
> which they would be 'sta
36 matches
Mail list logo
