On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, David B Funk wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> >
> > Depoly SPF, use the submission port to talk to your own mail server, problem
> > solved.
Although that allows you to support roaming users, SPF still breaks mail
forwarding. It's usable as a Spam
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, David B Funk wrote:
> Total agreement with this, but try to actually deploy it, client issues
> galore.
> Eudora will not let you set any port other than 25 for outgoing SMTP.
Technically you can, but effectively you are right since they make you jump
through hoops to do so.
Sorry, but this is not true. Eudora uses also 465.
On Dec 15, 2004, at 4:58 PM, Morris Jones wrote:
David B Funk wrote:
Eudora will not let you set any port other than 25 for outgoing SMTP.
Hopefully these will be fixed soon. I just guessed at the
configuration for my wife's Mac running Eudora, a
I like to think of SPF as my 'license' to use my domain or the domains
that I host to send email as though it is from one of my users. If I
have SPF records, I WANT other mail servers to respect that it is my
wish that ONLY MY authenticated users send email marked as such with my
permission.
I
David B Funk wrote:
Eudora will not let you set any port other than 25 for outgoing SMTP.
Hopefully these will be fixed soon. I just guessed at the configuration
for my wife's Mac running Eudora, and set the outgoing mailserver to
mail.whiteoaks.com:587 and it worked fine.
Best regards,
Mojo
--
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, jdow wrote:
>
> > > Why not configure your MTA to relay mail ONLY on encrypted authenticated
> > > sessions, and deliver locally (after some anti-spam checks) on plain
> > > sessions, all this done at port 25?
[snip..]
> Ac
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, jdow wrote:
> > Why not configure your MTA to relay mail ONLY on encrypted authenticated
> > sessions, and deliver locally (after some anti-spam checks) on plain
> > sessions, all this done at port 25?
>
> Setup an alternative mailer port for your machine on a different port
Max Paperno wrote:
More on a personal level, why does the SPF @ pobox.com site look like
a corporate advertisement for a product? Why do we need a bunch of
clipart images to "sell" something like a mail protocol if it's
really such a good idea? Why do I get the feeling someone wants to
make $$$ of
At 04:05 AM 12/15/2004, jdow wrote:
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> At 11:55 PM 12/13/2004 -0500, Peter Matulis wrote:
> ie: jdow wrote:
> > The chief thing SPF does is clutter up name server traffic to prove
> > something of little or no use when scoring spam.
>
> A true argument, bu
At 03:24 AM 12/15/2004, Max Paperno wrote:
At 12/15/2004 03:13 AM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
>Of course, there's other arguments too.. Redirectors, forwarding
services, etc, but these have their solutions. (Hint: SPF at each stage,
and when you remail, use a return path that points at your own se
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> At 11:55 PM 12/13/2004 -0500, Peter Matulis wrote:
> ie: jdow wrote:
> > The chief thing SPF does is clutter up name server traffic to prove
> > something of little or no use when scoring spam.
>
> A true argument, but utterly missing the point, unfo
[Sorry I'm not replying to the original mail, I seem to have missed it]
At 12/14/2004 10:01 AM +, someone wrote:
>> Hi, I have heard that SPF is controversial among mail administrators. Why
>is that? How many
>> people use it (on this mailing list)?
My main beef is that SPF breaks forwardin
At 11:55 PM 12/13/2004 -0500, Peter Matulis wrote:
Hi, I have heard that SPF is controversial among mail administrators. Why
is that?
I think mostly because people view it as a general purpose anti-spam tool.
With such a perspective, it's easy to poke holes in and declare it useless.
"Spammers
From: "Kevin W. Gagel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > From: "Clarke Brunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > Jonathan Nichols wrote:
> ---snip---
> > Even more to the point SPF is NOT a reason to accept or
> > reject mail. All it does is verify the domain from which
> > i
From: "Clarke Brunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> jdow wrote:
> > Even more to the point SPF is NOT a reason to accept or reject mail.
> > All it does is verify the domain from which it originated. That is a
> > tool for SCORING spam not for outright elimination of messages that
> > have bad SPF records
Tony Finch wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Clarke Brunt wrote:
it seems to me that a 'fail' result is a perfectly good reason to reject
a message outright, which is what I do (without it even being passed to
SpamAssassin).
How many users do you have? Do none of them have vanity addresses?
I
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Clarke Brunt wrote:
>
> it seems to me that a 'fail' result is a perfectly good reason to reject
> a message outright, which is what I do (without it even being passed to
> SpamAssassin).
How many users do you have? Do none of them have vanity addresses?
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch
- Original Message Follows -
From: "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Subject: Re: consensus on SPF
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:42:38 -0800
> From: "Clarke Brunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Jonathan Nichols wrote:
---snip---
> Even more to the
jdow wrote:
> Even more to the point SPF is NOT a reason to accept or reject mail.
> All it does is verify the domain from which it originated. That is a
> tool for SCORING spam not for outright elimination of messages that
> have bad SPF records and accepting those that have good SPF records.
> It
From: "Yassen Damyanov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tuesday 14 December 2004 15:52, Clarke Brunt wrote:
> >
> > You can set up your own SMTP server which listens on an alternative port
(to
> > avoid redirection of 25), and allows relaying for _authenticated_
> > connections, then arrange to submit _a
From: "Clarke Brunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Jonathan Nichols wrote:
> > I scrapped SPF, actually. Found that certain providers, such as
> > T-Mobile, re-direct & intercept outbound port 25 traffic, making SPF
> > more of a pain in the neck.
> >
> > Example: I try to send mail to this list from a T-
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Yassen Damyanov wrote:
Why not configure your MTA to relay mail ONLY on encrypted authenticated
sessions, and deliver locally (after some anti-spam checks) on plain
sessions, all this done at port 25?
The subject at hand is getting SPF working for providers that block port
2
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:52:37 -, Clarke Brunt wrote
> Jonathan Nichols wrote:
> > Example: I try to send mail to this list from a T-Mobile Hotspot
> > (Starbucks) - it gets kicked back because SF.net uses SPF, and my SPF
> > records don't show m55415454.tmodns.net in the SPF records. So what can
On Tuesday 14 December 2004 15:52, Clarke Brunt wrote:
>
> You can set up your own SMTP server which listens on an alternative port (to
> avoid redirection of 25), and allows relaying for _authenticated_
> connections, then arrange to submit _all_ your mail through it. Then your
> SPF record will
Jonathan Nichols wrote:
> I scrapped SPF, actually. Found that certain providers, such as
> T-Mobile, re-direct & intercept outbound port 25 traffic, making SPF
> more of a pain in the neck.
>
> Example: I try to send mail to this list from a T-Mobile Hotspot
> (Starbucks) - it gets kicked back bec
Clarke Brunt wrote:
Hi, I have heard that SPF is controversial among mail administrators. Why
is that? How many
people use it (on this mailing list)?
It's certainly not a simple subject: anyone who isn't familiar see
http://spf.pobox.com/
So long as you're careful, and realise that mistakes migh
> Hi, I have heard that SPF is controversial among mail administrators. Why
is that? How many
> people use it (on this mailing list)?
It's certainly not a simple subject: anyone who isn't familiar see
http://spf.pobox.com/
So long as you're careful, and realise that mistakes might precent mail
27 matches
Mail list logo
