nks for your help.
- Original Message -
*From:* "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Sent:* 09/29/2005 03:36:15 PM
*To:* Ben Lentz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Cc:* users@spamassassin.apache.org
*Subject:* SPF and Upgrade to SA 3.1
Ben Lentz wrote:
_You_ are
hea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Sent:* 09/29/2005 03:36:15 PM
*To:* Ben Lentz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Cc:* users@spamassassin.apache.org
*Subject:* SPF and Upgrade to SA 3.1
Ben Lentz wrote:
_You_ are _welcome_.
Get it moved? - Hmmm... Ala-kazamm! - Oh, that didn't work. Okay,
Ben Lentz wrote:
_You_ are _welcome_.
Get it moved? - Hmmm... Ala-kazamm! - Oh, that didn't work. Okay, so
magic isn't going to get it moved, and I'm all out of ideas.
I can only suggest starting another thread here or "somewhere else
applicable" that asks "this is the software I'm using, wh
Heh, That was supposed to be a joke; not very funny, I guess.
- Original Message -
*From:* Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Sent:* 09/29/2005 02:57:10 PM
*To:* users@spamassassin.apache.org
*Subject:* SPF and Upgrade to SA 3.1
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 02:47:05PM -0400, Ben
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 02:47:05PM -0400, Ben Lentz wrote:
> SPF stuff. Technology vendors everywhere are telling me that if I
> implement SPF and DK that the entire plannet will be spam free.
Just FWIW:
Those technology vendors are confused. Neither SPF nor DK are anti-spam
technologies. They'
me.
- Original Message -
*From:* "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Sent:* 09/29/2005 02:33:05 PM
*To:* Ben Lentz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Cc:* users@spamassassin.apache.org
*Subject:* SPF and Upgrade to SA 3.1
Ben Lentz wrote:
Here you go, the file has be
Ben Lentz wrote:
Here you go, the file has been _attached_.
_thanks_. ;)
The return-path header is in the wrong spot. It should be the very
first line of the message. Get it moved and you'll be set.
Daryl
*From:* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Sent:* 09/29/2005 01:25:15 PM
*To:* users@spamassassin.apache.org
*Subject:* SPF and Upgrade to SA 3.1
Ben Lentz wrote:
Here you go, the file has been _attached_.
The version you attach has no headers.
Ben Lentz wrote:
> Here you go, the file has been _attached_.
The version you attach has no headers.
--
Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com Software Engineer
Here you go, the file has been _attached_.
- Original Message -
*From:* "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Sent:* 09/29/2005 12:32:08 PM
*To:* Ben Lentz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Cc:* users@spamassassin.apache.org
*Subject:* SPF and Upgrade to SA 3.1
Ben
Ben Lentz wrote:
I'm lost. The email I received contains the header: "Return-Path:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]", so why would it be saying "spf: cannot get
Envelope-From, cannot use SPF"?
Usually it's a case of the header not being present during processing
and being added afterward. If it's present w
g more like a FUBAR in my
configuration and SPF record (mx vs. domain - including them both).
- Original Message -
*From:* "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Sent:* 09/28/2005 9:54:27 PM -0400
*To:* Ben Lentz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Cc:* users@spamassa
Ben Lentz wrote:
Okay, I've added
always_trust_envelope_sender 1
trusted_networks 10.1.0.0/16
trusted_networks 205.246.7.107
and restarted. Still not acknoledgement that SPF is working for
gmail.com. SPF-based whitelisting might be great, but at this point I'm
still not confident that SPF is w
prefork: child 28988: entering state 1
[28984] dbg: prefork: new lowest idle kid: 28988
[28984] dbg: prefork: child reports idle
[28984] info: prefork: child states: II
[28988] dbg: prefork: sysread(7) not ready, wait max 300 secs
- Original Message -
*From:* "Daryl C. W. O'
Ben Lentz wrote:
Thanks for the info. I just added "always_trust_envelope_sender 1" to my
local.cf and restarted. I then resent an email from gmail and still got
no SPF. So, that didn't solve my problem.
Am I incorrectly implimenting the standard? Do I need my TXT record to
be located at IN T
C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Sent:* 09/28/2005 8:16:53 PM -0400
*To:* Ben Lentz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Cc:* users@spamassassin.apache.org
*Subject:* SPF and Upgrade to SA 3.1
Ben Lentz wrote:
The message is sent from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] but shows u
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> SPF has NOTHING to do with the HELO/EHLO info.
>
> Actually it does.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02.txt
Oops, I'm wrong.
But not entirely.
Selected quotations from the above draft:
SPF clients MUST c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SPF has NOTHING to do with the HELO/EHLO info.
Actually it does.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02.txt
Daryl
Ben Lentz wrote:
The message is sent from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
but shows up with no SPF information. Are you saying that the SPF
records are supposed to be published along with the sending mail
server's A record instead of with the domain? Like if the MX for
channing-bete.com
Ben Lentz wrote:
> The message is sent from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] but shows up with no SPF information. Are
> you saying that the SPF
> records are supposed to be published along with the sending mail
> server's A record instead of with the domain? Like if the MX for
> channing-
The message is sent from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
but shows up with no SPF information. Are you saying that the SPF
records are supposed to be published along with the sending mail
server's A record instead of with the domain? Like if the MX for
channing-bete.com was smtp.channing
21 matches
Mail list logo
