Joe Emenaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How come. Unless you give a bonus to SPF pass, then there's no real
> incentive for legit domains to use it (until people start rejecting
> SPF fails... ).
We give points to SPF fails, so the incentive (in SpamAssassin) is that
forged mail using your dom
On 7 Sep 2004 Joe Emenaker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
By the same token, the point was never to be able to spot spammers by noting
who isn't using SPF. Rather, the point is to make the blacklists more
reliable. It is *only* when you use SPF in *conjunction* with
blacklists/whitelists that you se
> How come. Unless you give a bonus to SPF pass, then there's no real
> incentive for legit domains to use it (until people start
> rejecting SPF
> fails... ). The idea that spammers can pass SPF doesn't bother me at
> all, since I know that it will make the blacklists that much more
> effecti
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
Joe Emenaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Although others have already given reasons why, I figured I'd toss in
the analogy to explain why the dude from CypherTrust in the article is
lacking in clue:
The SpamAssassin development team has been aware of SPF pass results
Joe Emenaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Although others have already given reasons why, I figured I'd toss in
> the analogy to explain why the dude from CypherTrust in the article is
> lacking in clue:
The SpamAssassin development team has been aware of SPF pass results for
spam since May (a
On Friday 03 September 2004 09:17 pm, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
- SpamAssassin now includes support for SPF (the Sender Policy Framework,
http://spf.pobox.com/).
Why bother with this?
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/31/HNspammerstudy_1.html
Although others have already given reasons why, I
--On Tuesday, September 07, 2004 11:34 AM -0700 Gary Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can contest to that. We get 128 IP's with our T1 and have made
multiple request for RDNS. We re-request about every month...
Who's the ISP? (Just so the rest of us know who to avoid.) Feel free to cc
their
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 11:34:39AM -0700, Gary Smith wrote:
> I can contest to that. We get 128 IP's with our T1 and have made multiple
> request for RDNS. We re-request about every month...
Not to be picky, but this isn't really the right place to discuss whether
or not SPF is useful or not.
I can contest to that. We get 128 IP's with our T1 and have made multiple
request for RDNS. We re-request about every month...
From: Chris Blaise [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 9/7/2004 10:01 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: SpamAssassin 3.0.
Hi,
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> In terms of a reverse record, you can only have ONE PTR per ip, on a mail
> server that may handle hundreds of domains. SPF is *certainly* valid in
> this regard, as sort of a finer-grained PTR.
IIRC, you can have multiple PTRs per IP b
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Chris Blaise wrote:
In terms of a reverse record, you can only have ONE PTR per ip, on a mail
server that may handle hundreds of domains. SPF is *certainly* valid in
this regard, as sort of a finer-grained PTR.
-Dan
Another reason for SPF/SenderID vs. PTR records is unf
Another reason for SPF/SenderID vs. PTR records is unfortunately
while technically possible to delegate, many ISPs don't allow their
customers to manage the reverse records.
Chris
Spam Admin wrote:
>> http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/31/HNspammerstudy_1.html
>
>> Did you read the end of the article? SPF prevents forgery, not spam.
>> It's still valuable even if spammers use it.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but how does this differ
> from maintaining valid
> http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/31/HNspammerstudy_1.html
> Did you read the end of the article? SPF prevents forgery, not spam.
It's
> still valuable even if spammers use it.
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but how does this differ from
maintaining valid forward and reverse DNS en
sorry, missed to comment on this release earlier. Installed over RC2 on
one of our backup mail servers. No problems, just works (together with
MailScanner). Great :-)
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
IE-Center: http://i
John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why bother with [SPF]?
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/31/HNspammerstudy_1.html
We knew about this a long time ago. It's still a useful heuristic for
SpamAssassin, although there are indeed better ones. In the future, it
may become more us
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 11:49:30PM -0800, John Andersen wrote:
> Why bother with this?
> http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/31/HNspammerstudy_1.html
Because SPF is a "sender reputation system", not an anti-spam system?
Because it means the spammers that use SPF aren't forging someone else's
em
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 23:49:30 -0800, you wrote:
>On Friday 03 September 2004 09:17 pm, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>
>> - SpamAssassin now includes support for SPF (the Sender Policy Framework,
>> http://spf.pobox.com/).
>
>Why bother with this?
>
>http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/31/HNspammers
--On Friday, September 03, 2004 11:49 PM -0800 John Andersen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why bother with this?
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/31/HNspammerstudy_1.html
Did you read the end of the article? SPF prevents forgery, not spam. It's
still valuable even if spammers use it.
On Friday 03 September 2004 09:17 pm, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> - SpamAssassin now includes support for SPF (the Sender Policy Framework,
> http://spf.pobox.com/).
Why bother with this?
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/31/HNspammerstudy_1.html
--
_
J
*** THIS IS A RELEASE CANDIDATE ONLY, NOT THE FINAL 3.0.0 RELEASE ***
SpamAssassin 3.0.0-rc3 is released! SpamAssassin 3.0.0 is a major update
and includes a number of new email and anti-spam technologies.
SpamAssassin is a mail filter which uses advanced statistical and
heuristic tests to ident
21 matches
Mail list logo
