On Wed, 13 May 2020 10:24:06 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 10.05.20 13:36, listsb wrote:
> >i have the following defined in the config:
> >
> >internal_networks198.19.20.50/32
> >internal_networks198.19.20.212/32
>
> do you have them in trusted_networks too?
On 29.04.20 00:05, listsb wrote:
i'm experimenting with whitelist_from_spf, just to learn a little about how
it works, and not getting the result i am expecting. i've created a small
test message emulating mail from github [taken from an actual message] and
have added an
On May 03, 2020, at 10.55, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> On 29.04.20 00:05, listsb wrote:
>> i'm experimenting with whitelist_from_spf, just to learn a little about how
>> it works, and not getting the result i am expecting. i've created a small
>> test
On 29.04.20 00:05, listsb wrote:
i'm experimenting with whitelist_from_spf, just to learn a little about how
it works, and not getting the result i am expecting. i've created a small
test message emulating mail from github [taken from an actual message] and
have added an
hi-
i'm experimenting with whitelist_from_spf, just to learn a little about how it
works, and not getting the result i am expecting. i've created a small test
message emulating mail from github [taken from an actual message] and have
added an entry for whitelist_from_spf. when t
I was preparing to ask about an error message I was getting when I started up
spamd:
spamd[18145]: config: failed to parse line, skipping, in
"/usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin/whitelist.cf": whitelist_from_spf
*@covisp.net *@kreme.com
But I fixed the problem. It turns out that the
On 19.05.14 11:06, Jeff Mincy wrote:
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 11:06:24 -0400
From: Jeff Mincy
To: Matus UHLAR - fantomas
please, avoid personal replies.
I am not subscribed to mailing list to get personal mail from people there.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantom
t;
> >May 8 18:21:27.859 [22058] dbg: spf: whitelist_from_spf:
amandarodriq...@odysseyshop.ribsbuy.com matches ^.*\@.*buy\.com$ entry
> >May 8 18:21:27.859 [22058] dbg: spf: whitelist_from_spf:
amandarodriq...@odysseyshop.ribsbuy.com is in user's WHITELIST_FROM_SPF and
passe
On 17.05.14 14:11, Jeff Mincy wrote:
>It would have been easier to figure out why it was matching if the
>matching spf entry was printed out, for example something like this:
>
>May 8 18:21:27.859 [22058] dbg: spf: whitelist_from_spf:
amandarodriq...@odysseyshop.ribsbuy.com matche
From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 18:22:49 +0200
On 17.05.14 14:11, Jeff Mincy wrote:
>I just got some spam that was erroneously spf whitelisted hitting
WHITELIST_FROM_SPF
>It took me a while to figure out why it was getting WHITELIST_FROM_SPF
On 17.05.14 14:11, Jeff Mincy wrote:
I just got some spam that was erroneously spf whitelisted hitting
WHITELIST_FROM_SPF
It took me a while to figure out why it was getting WHITELIST_FROM_SPF
but I eventually tracked it down down to this whitelist entry:
whitelist_from_spf *@*buy.com
The
I just got some spam that was erroneously spf whitelisted hitting
WHITELIST_FROM_SPF
It took me a while to figure out why it was getting WHITELIST_FROM_SPF
but I eventually tracked it down down to this whitelist entry:
whitelist_from_spf *@*buy.com
The *@*buy.com (obviously) matches
m and whitelist_from_spf so mail admins can score
depending on the level of trust. Would it be feasible and/or desirable
to implement such a feature?
E.g,
whitelist_from_dkim_low
whitelist_from_dkim_med
whitelist_from_dkim_high
full DKIM_VALID_Y eval:check_dkim_valid(yahoogroups.com, .yahoo.com,
.yah
Greg Troxel writes:
> > whitelist_from_dkim_low
> > whitelist_from_dkim_med
> > whitelist_from_dkim_high
>
> That would be ok, but I'd also like to see
>
> whitelist_from_dkim_score -2.3 foo.com
>
> so that white/blacklisting in general could assign arbitrary score
> values.
I agree, I felt a
whitelist_from_dkim and whitelist_from_spf so mail admins can
> score depending on the *level* of trust. Would it be feasible and/or
> desirable to implement such a feature?
>
> E.g,
>
> whitelist_from_dkim_low
> whitelist_from_dkim_med
> whitelist_from_dkim_high
That would be ok, but I&
Ned,
> On the same basis that some DNSWLs have high, medium and low scores
> depending upon the level of trust, I'm wondering if it would be useful
> to have user defined high, medium and low scores available to rules such
> as whitelist_from_dkim and whitelist_from_spf s
On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 16:41:12 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
whitelist_from_dkim_low
if is dkim_valid
whitelist_from_dkim_med
if is def_whitelist_from_dkim
whitelist_from_dkim_high
if is whilist_from_dkim
why complicate it ?
Hi all,
On the same basis that some DNSWLs have high, medium and low scores
depending upon the level of trust, I'm wondering if it would be useful
to have user defined high, medium and low scores available to rules such
as whitelist_from_dkim and whitelist_from_spf so mail admins can
On 6/11/10 8:10 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
tested this on email with
twitter-resetpw-example=domain@postmaster.twitter.com and rule
hits fine on tests, lint likes it, compiles on some systems, but not all.
All running spamassassin 3.3.1 and re2c 0.13.5
def_whitelist_from_spftwitter-reset
tested this on email with
twitter-resetpw-example=domain@postmaster.twitter.com and rule hits
fine on tests, lint likes it, compiles on some systems, but not all.
All running spamassassin 3.3.1 and re2c 0.13.5
def_whitelist_from_spftwitter-resetp...@postmaster.twitter.com
lint and sa-compi
-Original Message-
From: LuKreme [mailto:krem...@kreme.com]
Sent: vrijdag 15 mei 2009 8:05
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: whitelist_from_spf
On 14-May-2009, at 21:57, Mark wrote:
>> "v=spf1 mx a:spf.orange.es ip4:213.143.52.0/24 -all"
>>
>>
On 14-May-2009, at 21:57, Mark wrote:
"v=spf1 mx a:spf.orange.es ip4:213.143.52.0/24 -all"
What's the CIDR there for if not to identify the valid range of IPs
for the SPF records?
Wait a minute, are they saying that their ENTIRE CLASS C is allowed
to send mail 'from' orange.es?
The /24 CIDR c
-Original Message-
From: LuKreme [mailto:krem...@kreme.com]
Sent: vrijdag 15 mei 2009 5:37
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: whitelist_from_spf
On 14-May-2009, at 15:44, RW wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 15:33:36 -0600
> LuKreme wrote:
>> You are confused. That i
On 14-May-2009, at 15:44, RW wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 15:33:36 -0600
LuKreme wrote:
You are confused. That is not an SPF record.
It's not, but it's already been established that a:spf.orange.es is
in the spf record.
OK, maybe *I* am confused.
"v=spf1 mx a:spf.orange.es ip4:213.143.52.0/
On Thu, 14 May 2009 15:33:36 -0600
LuKreme wrote:
> On May 14, 2009, at 9:32, Alvaro Marín wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >>> the problem is that from that server, using dig, nslookup,
> >>> host...etc,
> >>> the record is resolved without problems (with TCP):
> >>
> >> No, the real problem is that SPF f
On May 14, 2009, at 9:32, Alvaro Marín wrote:
Hi,
the problem is that from that server, using dig, nslookup,
host...etc,
the record is resolved without problems (with TCP):
No, the real problem is that SPF failed. There are other issues, but
that is the main one. That IP is not in their SP
Hi,
>> the problem is that from that server, using dig, nslookup, host...etc,
>> the record is resolved without problems (with TCP):
>
> No, the real problem is that SPF failed. There are other issues, but
> that is the main one. That IP is not in their SPF record.
Yes, the IP is in their SPF rec
On May 14, 2009, at 7:44, Alvaro Marín wrote:
Hello,
the problem is that from that server, using dig, nslookup, host...etc,
the record is resolved without problems (with TCP):
No, the real problem is that SPF failed. There are other issues, but
that is the main one. That IP is not in the
Hello,
the problem is that from that server, using dig, nslookup, host...etc,
the record is resolved without problems (with TCP):
r...@relay09:~
# dig spf.orange.es
;; Warning: Message parser reports malformed message packet.
;; Truncated, retrying in TCP mode.
; <<>> DiG 9.5.0-P2 <<>> spf.orang
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> my mistake. seems orange.es is using a HUGE a record list.
>
> you might want to check your dns servers. make sure they can pass dns
> records in tcp.
>
> (if result is 'huge' (> 255 bytes)) dns will NOT use udp port 53, but
> tcp port 53.
> do a 'host -t a spf.oriange.
Alvaro Marín wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm having problems using whitelist_from_spf to whitelist a domain.
>
>
> So, which is the purpose of this whitelist feature? If the SPF check fails,
> it can't do whitelist?
>
Yep, and that's the purpose. whitelist_from_sp
.36.20.207
spf.orange.es has address 62.36.20.208
spf.orange.es has address 62.36.20.209
spf.orange.es has address 62.36.20.210
spf.orange.es has address 62.36.20.211
spf.orange.es has address 62.36.20.212
Michael Scheidell wrote:
Alvaro Marín wrote:
Hello,
I'm having problems using
Alvaro Marín wrote:
Hello,
I'm having problems using whitelist_from_spf to whitelist a domain.
no, the sender is having problems using spf :-(
orange.es publishes this as their spf records:
host -t txt orange.es
orange.es descriptive text "v=spf1 mx a:spf.orange.es
ip4:213.1
From: Alvaro MarÃn
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 13:30:49 +0200
It seems that there is a problem resolving DNS records of that domain so I
want to whitelist it. If I add:
whitelist_from_spf *...@orange.es
It's ignored by SA, as the log says.
Reviewing code of SPF.pm
Le 14/05/2009 13:30, Alvaro Marín a écrit :
It seems that there is a problem resolving DNS records of that domain so I
want to whitelist it. If I add:
whitelist_from_spf *...@orange.es
You're misunderstanding the purpose of whitelist_from_spf. It is
intended for whitelisting mail fr
Hello,
I'm having problems using whitelist_from_spf to whitelist a domain.
[23227] dbg: spf: checking to see if the message has a Received-SPF header
that we can use
[23227] dbg: spf: using Mail::SPF for SPF checks
[23227] dbg: spf: checking HELO (helo=out10.wanadoo.es, ip=62.36.20.210)
[
SPF_HELO_PASS is NOT considered by whitelist_from_spf.
Daryl
ave an SPF policy; however, the helo record does match:
> > >
> > > If I add a whitelist_from_spf record for this correspondent, will it
> > > work?
> On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 17:38 +, RW wrote:
> > I don't believe so. You might try whitelist_from_rcvd if you have
> &
s does
> > not have an SPF policy; however, the helo record does match:
> >
> > If I add a whitelist_from_spf record for this correspondent, will it
> > work?
>
> I don't believe so. You might try whitelist_from_rcvd if you have
> reverse dns on the last-hop.
=[L_P0F_UNKN=0.8, RELAY_US=0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001,
> SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=1, TVD_PH_REC=2.996, UPPERCASE_50_75=0.49,
> US_DOLLARS_3=1.165]
>
> If I add a whitelist_from_spf record for this correspondent, will it
> work?
I don't believe so. You might try whitelist_from_rcvd if you have
re
165]
If I add a whitelist_from_spf record for this correspondent, will it
work?
The message is sent from someu...@subdomain.example.com while the helo
address is differentdomain.example.com. In this case, example.com and
differentdomain.example.com both have valid, matching spf re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Roger Taranto wrote:
>> The reason I ask is that my dad's SPF record is listed as ~all for his
>> externally-visible static IP address, but when machines internal to
>> his network connect to send mail, they look forged since they have a
>> 192.168 address. Suggestions?
Roger Taranto wrote:
> The reason I ask is that my dad's SPF record is listed as ~all for his
> externally-visible static IP address, but when machines internal to
> his network connect to send mail, they look forged since they have a
> 192.168 address. Suggestions?
Bypass SPF checking on
* mail
On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 21:29, Matt Kettler wrote:
> jdow wrote:
> > From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >> Ramprasad wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> I am using SA 3.1.1 as a module in MailScanner.
> >>> I
Matt,
Thanks for helping. Got whitelist_from_spf working ( with some help
from postfix guys )
I had to do the following IN postfix
In file /etc/postfix/main.cf
smtpd_data_restrictions = reject_unauth_pipelining,
check_sender_access
regexp:/etc/postfix
> Yes, but what box performs the SA scan? is it darkstar? or some other box?
> Does
> the box performing the SA scan see the masquerade, or is it also behind your
> firewall and thus sees the private IPs?
>
> You're not concerned with what outside machines see here. You are trying to
> diagnose
jdow wrote:
> From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Ramprasad wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I am using SA 3.1.1 as a module in MailScanner.
>>> I am not able to get whitelist_from_spf working.
>>> In my local.cf I have
>>>
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ramprasad wrote:
Hi,
I am using SA 3.1.1 as a module in MailScanner.
I am not able to get whitelist_from_spf working.
In my local.cf I have
ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SPF
whitelist_from_spf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
endif
A
Ramprasad wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 10:18 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
>> Ramprasad wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I am using SA 3.1.1 as a module in MailScanner.
>>> I am not able to get whitelist_from_spf working.
>>>
>>> In my local.cf I
On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 10:18 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Ramprasad wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I am using SA 3.1.1 as a module in MailScanner.
> > I am not able to get whitelist_from_spf working.
> >
> > In my local.cf I have
> >
> > ifplugin Mail::SpamA
On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 10:12 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Ramprasad wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I am using SA 3.1.1 as a module in MailScanner.
> > I am not able to get whitelist_from_spf working.
> >
> > In my local.cf I have
> >
> > ifplugin Mail::SpamA
On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 10:12 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Ramprasad wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I am using SA 3.1.1 as a module in MailScanner.
> > I am not able to get whitelist_from_spf working.
> >
> > In my local.cf I have
> >
> > ifplugin Mail::SpamA
Ramprasad wrote:
> Hi,
> I am using SA 3.1.1 as a module in MailScanner.
> I am not able to get whitelist_from_spf working.
>
> In my local.cf I have
>
> ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SPF
> whitelist_from_spf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> endif
>
> A mai
Ramprasad wrote:
> Hi,
> I am using SA 3.1.1 as a module in MailScanner.
> I am not able to get whitelist_from_spf working.
>
> In my local.cf I have
>
> ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SPF
> whitelist_from_spf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> endif
>
> A mai
Hi,
I am using SA 3.1.1 as a module in MailScanner.
I am not able to get whitelist_from_spf working.
In my local.cf I have
ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SPF
whitelist_from_spf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
endif
A mail from a SPF allowed IP is scored SPF_HELO_PASS ( evidently spf
checks are
Justin Mason wrote on Fri, 02 Dec 2005 11:30:07 -0800:
> by the way what 'whitelist_from_spf' line works for the scomp reports?
Address is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
IE-Center:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"Daryl C. W. O'Shea" writes:
> On 12/2/2005 9:39 AM, Wolfgang Zeikat wrote:
> > will whitelist_from_spf work in 3.0.4 without further changes?
>
> Only if the changes before "further changes" include hackin
On 12/2/2005 9:47 AM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 12/2/2005 9:39 AM, Wolfgang Zeikat wrote:
will whitelist_from_spf work in 3.0.4 without further changes?
Only if the changes before "further changes" include hacking it into
SPF.pm. :)
The 3.1 SPF.pm might work with 3.
On 12/2/2005 9:39 AM, Wolfgang Zeikat wrote:
will whitelist_from_spf work in 3.0.4 without further changes?
Only if the changes before "further changes" include hacking it into
SPF.pm. :)
The 3.1 SPF.pm might work with 3.0 if you backed out this change though:
http://svn.
On 12/02/05 04:07, Justin Mason wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
you should _definitely_ whitelist AOL's scomp source address -- preferably
using "whitelist_from_spf", as they publish a reliable SPF record
for aol.net.
will whitelist_from_spf work i
60 matches
Mail list logo
