On Mittwoch, 22. März 2006 18:47 Bazooka Joe wrote:
> with isp's blocking port 25 and requireing you to use thier mail
> server how are business going to enable spf of thier domain when
> thier employees could be sending mail from hundreds of different mail
> servers??
Use VPNs. Never allow anybod
On Mittwoch, 22. März 2006 00:11 Sander Holthaus wrote:
> and it wouldn't surprise me
> if actively rejecting SPF-fails has the similar effects as strict
> RFC-enforcement or double reverse DNS-lookup. Lots less spam and lots
> more false positives.
No, because
1) by forcing strict RFC, lots of HA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>
> Notice my FAIL percentage is much higher. This is probably because my domain
> publishes a "-all" record, and the most-frequently-spoofed domain for mail I
> receive is my own.
I publish as soft-fail.
That said, SA doesn't receive that much
Bazooka Joe wrote:
> with isp's blocking port 25 and requireing you to use thier mail
> server how are business going to enable spf of thier domain when
> thier employees could be sending mail from hundreds of different mail
> servers??
No-one's holding a gun to their head. If they don't want
with isp's blocking port 25 and requireing you to use thier mail server
how are business going to enable spf of thier domain when thier
employees could be sending mail from hundreds of different mail
servers??On 3/22/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:Matthew.van.Eerde wrote:> pass: 4
Matthew.van.Eerde wrote:
> pass: 467
> none: 3297
> softfail: 139
> fail: 106
> error: 2
Oops, forgot "neutral"
none: 3357
pass: 486
neutral: 91
softfail: 140
fail: 110
error: 2
--
Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com So
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Real numbers from last week:
>
> Total messages scanned by SA:
> 19268
> Number of messages matching SPF_FAIL:
> 89
> Number of messages matching SPF_SOFTFAIL
> 493
> Number of messages matching SPF_NEUTRAL
> 200
> Number of messages matching SPF_PASS
>6064
From: "Michael Monnerie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
And if you don't care about spoofs, don't check it.
Not long ago I learned about a malformed spf spoof trick that allowed
spam through from addresses not normally allowed to send it directly.
{^_^}
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Monnerie wrote:
> On Dienstag, 21. März 2006 21:35 mouss wrote:
>> I'd follow. I even think there are more spammers with good spf
>> than legit' people with spf.
>
> Could also be. SPF still doesn't help against SPAM, just against
> forgery. W
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Anyone have monthly numbers for the percentages of
> sites that have SPF turned on for their incoming messages?
>
> I.e. if you received 1000 messages last month... how many
> unique domains were represented, and of those, how many
> had SPF enabled? And how many messa
On Dienstag, 21. März 2006 21:35 mouss wrote:
> I'd follow. I even think there are more spammers with good spf than
> legit' people with spf.
Could also be. SPF still doesn't help against SPAM, just against
forgery. Where SPAM often tries to forge, but thats another story.
> one thing we know: s
On Dienstag, 21. März 2006 21:42 mouss wrote:
> - if you wanna add spf records, do
> - if you wanna check spf, do
And if you don't care about spoofs, don't check it.
mfg zmi
--
// Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc --- it-management Michael Monnerie
// http://zmi.at Tel: 0660/4156531
Michael Monnerie a écrit :
> I bet. SPF is NOT a means to check whether it's SPAM or HAM. It can just
> tell you if a sender host is permitted to send e-mail for the given
> domain, so you can prevent *forgery* of e-mails, which I find
> important. I don't want others to be able to send from @zm
jdow a écrit :
> I'd hazard a guess that there is about as much spam that passes SPF tests
> as there is ham that passes SPF tests.
>
I'd follow. I even think there are more spammers with good spf than
legit' people with spf.
> At least in the case of spam it means the blacklists mean something.
On Dienstag, 21. März 2006 06:28 jdow wrote:
> I'd hazard a guess that there is about as much spam that passes SPF
> tests as there is ham that passes SPF tests.
I bet. SPF is NOT a means to check whether it's SPAM or HAM. It can just
tell you if a sender host is permitted to send e-mail for the
From: "Philip Prindeville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Anyone have monthly numbers for the percentages of
sites that have SPF turned on for their incoming messages?
I.e. if you received 1000 messages last month... how many
unique domains were represented, and of those, how many
had SPF enabled? And ho
Anyone have monthly numbers for the percentages of
sites that have SPF turned on for their incoming messages?
I.e. if you received 1000 messages last month... how many
unique domains were represented, and of those, how many
had SPF enabled? And how many messages turned out to
be spoofed by the SP
17 matches
Mail list logo
