On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 23:50 +, Francis Russell wrote:
> dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
>
> > If everyone uses SPF, all we need to block all spam is these rules
> > (SPF_NOT_PASS alone should do it), and a blacklist of domains that have
> > SPF records including IPs that send spam.
>
> You migh
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> If everyone uses SPF, all we need to block all spam is these rules
> (SPF_NOT_PASS alone should do it), and a blacklist of domains that have
> SPF records including IPs that send spam.
You might also want to read this:
http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/F
Ned Slider wrote:
> It's never going to happen. We can't even get half the banks to
> implement measures like SPF or DKIM, and they are getting the hell
> phished out of them and are exactly the type of sector you'd expect to
> be using such measures to prevent spoofing and making it easier for
>
> > On 02/02, Marc Perkel wrote:
> >> Why would you want to catch domains without SPF as SPF has no
> >> relationship to detecting spam?
> On 2/2/10 5:38 PM, "dar...@chaosreigns.com" wrote:
> > SPF is entirely about spam.
On 02.02.10 18:05, Daniel McDonald wrote:
> Sorry, but SPF is entirely abo
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 02/02, Marc Perkel wrote:
Why would you want to catch domains without SPF as SPF has no
relationship to detecting spam?
SPF is entirely about spam.
http://www.openspf.org/Introduction
I'm looking at the page and did a search and the word "spam" i
From: dar...@chaosreigns.com
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 18:38:20 -0500
On 02/02, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Why would you want to catch domains without SPF as SPF has no
> relationship to detecting spam?
SPF is entirely about spam.
Actually, SPF is about forgery and forgery is par
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 02/02, Marc Perkel wrote:
Why would you want to catch domains without SPF as SPF has no
relationship to detecting spam?
SPF is entirely about spam.
http://www.openspf.org/Introduction
If everyone uses SPF, all we need to block all spam is these rules
(SPF_NO
On 2/2/10 5:38 PM, "dar...@chaosreigns.com" wrote:
> On 02/02, Marc Perkel wrote:
>> Why would you want to catch domains without SPF as SPF has no
>> relationship to detecting spam?
>
> SPF is entirely about spam.
Sorry, but SPF is entirely about ham. We use SPF with vendors who want to
ens
On 02/02, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Why would you want to catch domains without SPF as SPF has no
> relationship to detecting spam?
SPF is entirely about spam.
http://www.openspf.org/Introduction
If everyone uses SPF, all we need to block all spam is these rules
(SPF_NOT_PASS alone should do it), a
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
Ideally everyone would pass these.
and ideally we'd live in a world with no spam.
meta SPF_HELO_NOT_PASS !SPF_HELO_PASS
meta SPF_NOT_PASS !SPF_PASS
These will catch everything that does not have a valid SPF record,
including those for domains t
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
Ideally everyone would pass these.
meta SPF_HELO_NOT_PASS !SPF_HELO_PASS
meta SPF_NOT_PASS !SPF_PASS
These will catch everything that does not have a valid SPF record,
including those for domains that have no SPF record.
I tested only the most r
Ideally everyone would pass these.
meta SPF_HELO_NOT_PASS !SPF_HELO_PASS
meta SPF_NOT_PASS !SPF_PASS
These will catch everything that does not have a valid SPF record,
including those for domains that have no SPF record.
I tested only the most recent 1,000 emails from my inbox,
12 matches
Mail list logo
