-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gino Cerullo wrote:
>
> On 27-Jul-06, at 4:32 PM, Hamish wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 26 July 2006 17:25, Marc Perkel wrote:
>>> Benny Pedersen wrote:
>>>> On Tue, July 25, 2006 18:51, Marc Perkel wrote:
>>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John D. Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Hamish wrote:
>
>> Forwarding should (IMO) be implemented in such a way as the
>> FORWARDING mailbox should be used as the new return-path (Just
>> like if you forwarded an email from your MUA rather than wi
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 14:35 -0700, John D. Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Hamish wrote:
>
> > Forwarding should (IMO) be implemented in such a way as the
> > FORWARDING mailbox should be used as the new return-path (Just
> > like if you forwarded an email from your MUA rather than with the
>
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Hamish wrote:
> Forwarding should (IMO) be implemented in such a way as the
> FORWARDING mailbox should be used as the new return-path (Just
> like if you forwarded an email from your MUA rather than with the
> MDA). Then both SPF and forwarding would work fine. And
> furtherm
On 27-Jul-06, at 4:32 PM, Hamish wrote:
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 17:25, Marc Perkel wrote:
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Tue, July 25, 2006 18:51, Marc Perkel wrote:
SPF breaks email forwarding. My users use forwarding.
fair, but why not stop using forwarding ?
Because my customers want to
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 17:25, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Benny Pedersen wrote:
> > On Tue, July 25, 2006 18:51, Marc Perkel wrote:
> >> SPF breaks email forwarding. My users use forwarding.
> >
> > fair, but why not stop using forwarding ?
>
> Because my customers
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 00:42, Marc Perkel took the opportunity to write:
> If any of my customers fail to get any email that they are supposed to
> get then that's not acceptable. It does happen and when it does - I fix
> it. Several of my customers forward email from other account to accounts
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Graham Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:46 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: SPF breaks email forwarding
>
>
> Rolf Kraeuchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >
On Monday 24 July 2006 15:24, Marc Perkel took the opportunity to write:
> Except = SPF breaks email forwarding. It requires that the world change
> how email is forwarded and that's not going to happen. Thus if a bank
> has a hard fail and someone with an account on my server gets e
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Tue, July 25, 2006 18:51, Marc Perkel wrote:
SPF breaks email forwarding. My users use forwarding.
fair, but why not stop using forwarding ?
Because my customers want to use forwarding.
Gino Cerullo wrote:
On 26-Jul-06, at 4:00 AM, Rolf Kraeuchi wrote:
Gino Cerullo schrieb:
[...]
Hey, I never claimed checking and
rejecting before DATA to be ready for
'large scale' deployments. ;-) But, I
have to say that in the six months
that I've
On 26-Jul-06, at 10:46 AM, Graham Murray wrote:
Rolf Kraeuchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hmm, SOFTFAIL scores higher than FAIL??
Maybe because some (many?) people reject SPF fail at SMTP time, so
spam with SPF fail is not presented to SpamAssassin.
Actually this makes sense in my situat
Rolf Kraeuchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm, SOFTFAIL scores higher than FAIL??
Maybe because some (many?) people reject SPF fail at SMTP time, so
spam with SPF fail is not presented to SpamAssassin.
On Tue, July 25, 2006 18:51, Marc Perkel wrote:
> I don't have an SPF record because I refuse to support a broken
> technology.
sigh
> SPF breaks email forwarding. My users use forwarding.
fair, but why not stop using forwarding ?
> SMTP is broken - but I can't change tha
Gino Cerullo schrieb:
>
> On 26-Jul-06, at 4:00 AM, Rolf Kraeuchi wrote:
>
>> Gino Cerullo schrieb:
>> [...]
>>> Hey, I never claimed checking and rejecting before DATA to be ready for
>>> 'large scale' deployments. ;-) But, I have to say that in the six months
>>> that I've been doing it I've ne
On 26-Jul-06, at 4:00 AM, Rolf Kraeuchi wrote:Gino Cerullo schrieb:[...] Hey, I never claimed checking and rejecting before DATA to be ready for'large scale' deployments. ;-) But, I have to say that in the six monthsthat I've been doing it I've never had a false positive. wood> Also, I've been publ
Sorry folks
I agree without SPF ( or DK ?) it would very difficult to prevent
forging. I am going to ask my DNS providers to publish SPF records
immediately. Thanks to everyone for knowledge sharing
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 18:33 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>
> Michele Neylon :: Blacknight.ie wro
Gino Cerullo schrieb:
[...]
> Hey, I never claimed checking and rejecting before DATA to be ready for
> 'large scale' deployments. ;-) But, I have to say that in the six months
> that I've been doing it I've never had a false positive. wood> Also, I've been publishing an SPF record for over two ye
"John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think that's a big problem right there. Since when did "guaranteed
> delivery" become part of email?
Never, but the relative newcomers to email probably do not realise
that. Email delivery has always been "best endeavour".
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
> If any of my customers fail to get any email that they are supposed to
> get then that's not acceptable.
I think that's a big problem right there. Since when did "guaranteed
delivery" become part of email?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZICQ#15735746http:
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight.ie wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
So if I used SPF then I would lose email
to these customers.
No you wouldn't unless someone was doing some kind of demented hard fail
Yes - and other people do use hard fail.
Gino Cerullo wrote:
I am curious though. Why do you "think SRS is a bad idea" and what
makes it "clearly a mistake." You appear to feel strongly about this
but without an explanation it's hard to fathom why. Please elaborate.
Because I do conditionals based on the from address and if th
Title: Message
-Original Message-From: Marc Perkel
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 6:43
PMTo: Michael ScheidellCc: Daryl C. W. O'Shea;
Spamassassin Users ListSubject: Re: SPF breaks email
forwarding
If any of my customers fail to ge
On 25-Jul-06, at 6:34 PM, Michele Neylon wrote:
After some of the "clever" implementations I've seen NOTHING would
surprise me
The word "muppetry" springs to mind :)
Ahh, but that's why I qualified my statement by saying, "Nobody in
there right mind..."
I notice your SPF record ends
Marc Perkel wrote:
> So if I used SPF then I would lose email
> to these customers.
No you wouldn't unless someone was doing some kind of demented hard fail
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Quality Business Hosting & Colocation
http://www.blacknight.ie/
Tel. 1850 927 280
Intl. +353 (
On 25-Jul-06, at 6:34 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Many people, including me, think SRS is a bad idea. So I'm not
getting on board with a system that is clearly a mistake.
That's fine. You, along with everyone else, are entitle to your
opinion. Furthermore, you along with those people are free to
il to these customers.
Michael Scheidell wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 3:13 PM
To: Spamassassin Users List
Subject: Re: SPF breaks email forwarding
You find me a large scale installation that is actuall
on't blame you under the circumstances.
It's just that your statement was at best obvious and at the same time
incomplete. A more accurate statement would have been, "SPF breaks
email forwarding for my users and myself because my email forwarder
does not support SRS" for
Michael Scheidell wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You find me a large scale installation that is actually checking, and
rejecting on, SPF records before DATA and isn't frequently rejecting
mail their users want and I'll buy you lunch.
Yo
On 25-Jul-06, at 5:05 PM, Bill Landry wrote:
I only recently got spamassassin up and running and am hardly an
expert but
can anyone explain to me exactly what spf is?
See http://www.openspf.org/ for detailed information on SPF.
Bill
There is also http://new.openspf.org/
If you are really
Gino Cerullo wrote:
> Nobody in there right mind rejects on a
> SOFTFAIL.
After some of the "clever" implementations I've seen NOTHING would
surprise me
The word "muppetry" springs to mind :)
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Quality Business Hosting & Colocation
http://www.blac
On 25-Jul-06, at 5:05 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:I'd settle for just well defined, and actually usable.Or we could just wait until it actually works right.That sounds reasonable. If the protocol is as sound as it appears to be, the MTA developers will make an effort to implement it. If not, then
> -Original Message-
> From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 3:13 PM
> To: Spamassassin Users List
> Subject: Re: SPF breaks email forwarding
>
>
>
> You find me a large scale installation that is actually ch
ge-
From: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:51 PM
To: Gino Cerullo
Cc: Spamassassin Users List
Subject: Re: SPF breaks email forwarding
I don't have an SPF record because I refuse to support a broken
technology. SPF breaks email forwarding. My users use for
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Lindell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I only recently got spamassassin up and running and am hardly an expert but
can anyone explain to me exactly what spf is?
See http://www.openspf.org/ for detailed information on SPF.
Bill
I only recently got spamassassin up and running and am hardly an expert but
can anyone explain to me exactly what spf is?
Tom
-Original Message-
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:13 PM
To: Spamassassin Users List
Subject: Re: SPF b
Gino Cerullo wrote:
involved that prevent them from implementing it. Until the default
behaviour of an MTA is to implement SRS or SRS can easily be implemented
I'd settle for just well defined, and actually usable.
in existing MTAs this will continue to be a problem. We'll just have to
liv
accurate statement would have been, "SPF
breaks email forwarding for my users and myself because my email
forwarder does not support SRS" for which we would have said
something like, "well don't use SPF" or better yet, "find a different
email provider that has
I don't have an SPF record because I refuse to support a broken
technology. SPF breaks email forwarding. My users use forwarding. SMTP
is broken - but I can't change that. I have to be compatible with the
rest of the world.
Gino Cerullo wrote:
Whether it's SPF, DKIM, a combina
forgeries, email viruses prove it."
To make a statement like "SPF breaks email forwarding" and not offer
an alternative merely makes you come off as a troll with an agenda.
Now, I know from your contributions here that you are neither a troll
or have an ulterior motive with s
Hi,
it seems to me that one of the big problems of email is the fact that email
clients
more or less hide the email address in favor of the display name,
and that many users seem to lack the knowledge to check, let alone understand,
message headers
I guess most people should be able to notice the
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Ramprasad wrote:
> > Except = SPF breaks email forwarding. It requires that the world
> > change how email is forwarded and that's not going to happen. Thus if
> > a bank has a hard fail and someone with an account on my server gets
> > email from
re xxx.bank.com resolves to the IP
>> >> address from which the mail is sent, then it would
>> >> considerably easier to detecting phishing and greatly improve
>> >> the security for their customers.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Even if
Marc Perkel wrote:
But I have no control over the servers that forward to me. Thus SPF is
useless.
so, again, bottom line:
SMTP is broken. has been, phishing, forgeries, email viruses prove it.
YOU fix it without breaking something.
It can't be done.
All you can do is compromise., and ps, SP
But I have no control over the servers that forward to me. Thus SPF is
useless.
Michael Scheidell wrote:
Ramprasad wrote:
I know this is a troll subject
Yes SPF breaks email forwarding, so does PTR checking ( which never was
a great idea IMHO ). Every technique has some drawbacks. SPF has
Ramprasad wrote:
I know this is a troll subject
Yes SPF breaks email forwarding, so does PTR checking ( which never was
a great idea IMHO ). Every technique has some drawbacks. SPF has some
but is still better than the rest
When you want add security to an inherently insecure medium you cant
> Except = SPF breaks email forwarding. It requires that the world
> change how email is forwarded and that's not going to happen. Thus if
> a bank has a hard fail and someone with an account on my server gets
> email from an account that is forwarded then my server sees the email
Michael Scheidell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, and if you require all mail servers to only take mail from
> xxx.bank.com, what good is that? doesn't that break how everyone
> receives email?
No. It just rings very loud alarm bells when an email claiming to be
from the bank comes from a ser
Marc Perkel wrote:
Except = SPF breaks email forwarding. It requires that the world change
how email is forwarded and that's not going to happen. Thus if a bank
has a hard fail and someone with an account on my server gets email
from an account that is forwarded then my server
tomers.
Even if the banks used spf hardfail, it would at least stop phishing to
ISP's ans servers that knew about SPF.
(you could bump SPF_HARDFAIL score to 15, or use spf to block offending
connection right in postfix!)
Except = SPF breaks email forwarding. It requires tha
50 matches
Mail list logo
