> > Le 12/12/2010 19:23, Giampaolo Tomassoni a écrit :
> > > I just got blocked by the AT&T's blacklist (in contacting
> > > ab...@att.com, besides...), but I'm pretty sure my MX is not an open
> > > relay or other kind of nifty thing.
> > $ host tomassoni.biz
> > tomassoni.biz has address 62.149.
On 15.12.10 10:59, Nikolay Shopik wrote:
> I have domain hosted at google apps, and my domain have recomended by
> google txt record "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ~all". So far when I
> receive mail from this domain spamassassin doesn't trigger rule SPF_PASS
> nor SPF_SOFTFAIL, is this norm
On 15/12/10 12:04, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 15.12.10 10:59, Nikolay Shopik wrote:
I have domain hosted at google apps, and my domain have recomended by
google txt record "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ~all". So far when I
receive mail from this domain spamassassin doesn't trigger rule S
On 12/14/2010 8:31 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> On 12/14/10 3:35 PM, Cedric Knight wrote:
>> On 14/12/10 14:28, Marc Perkel wrote:
>>> Are there any DNSBLs out there based on email addresses? Since you
>>> can't
>>> use an @ in a DNS lookup
>> Actually, you can use '@' in a lookup. You just can
>> On 15.12.10 10:59, Nikolay Shopik wrote:
>>> I have domain hosted at google apps, and my domain have recomended by
>>> google txt record "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ~all". So far when I
>>> receive mail from this domain spamassassin doesn't trigger rule SPF_PASS
>>> nor SPF_SOFTFAIL, is this
Sorry all,
Been away from the list for quite some time. Just updated SA from 3.2.5
to 3.3.1. Have been trying to find a list of sa-update channels that are
still relevant but not with much success.
Does anyone know is such a list exists, or if you know of which additional
channels can still
On 12/15/2010 11:57 AM, Andy Jezierski wrote:
> Sorry all,
>
> Been away from the list for quite some time. Just updated SA from
> 3.2.5 to 3.3.1. Have been trying to find a list of sa-update channels
> that are still relevant but not with much success.
>
> Does anyone know is such a list exists,
my mx have public ip and not behind nat, should i add public ip of my mx into
internal_networks?
"Matus UHLAR - fantomas" wrote:
>>> On 15.12.10 10:59, Nikolay Shopik wrote:
I have domain hosted at google apps, and my domain have recomended
>by
google txt record "v=spf1 include:_spf.g
This is a long and somewhat complex story. I've been running my own
mail for 15+ years or so, always on a fixed IP. A few years ago
business picked up so I got some additional IP's from my supplier
(BT); it turned out that they were "decommissioned" DUL's renewed as
statics. Initially we jumped the
On ons 15 dec 2010 18:08:20 CET, Nikolay Shopik wrote
my mx have public ip and not behind nat, should i add public ip of
my mx into internal_networks?
no, just trusted (you trust your own server, and forwarding ips)
internal is more if you use servers in rfc1918 ip ranges
other then that ch
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 07:04:18 +, "corpus.defero"
wrote:
>
>> Ultimately, this seems to be more of a witch hunt against SORBS than a
>> SA issue. Although I'm not opposed to a SORBS witch hunt, I don't think
>> it belongs here.
>
>Indeed, and it's Lynford and his money grabbing cronies mostl
On 15/12/2010 1:32 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 12/15/2010 11:57 AM, Andy Jezierski wrote:
Sorry all,
Been away from the list for quite some time. Just updated SA from
3.2.5 to 3.3.1. Have been trying to find a list of sa-update channels
that are still relevant but not with much success.
Does
On 15.12.2010 20:33, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On ons 15 dec 2010 18:08:20 CET, Nikolay Shopik wrote
my mx have public ip and not behind nat, should i add public ip of my
mx into internal_networks?
no, just trusted (you trust your own server, and forwarding ips)
internal is more if you use serve
On ons 15 dec 2010 19:20:28 CET, Nikolay Shopik wrote
I did play more with gmail as example, and notice. If I send email
from web interface SPF always matched and OK. If I'm using MUA to
send mail via SMTP it never fail or pass SPF rule. Probably new
"Received:" header is related, any ideas?
On 15.12.2010 21:28, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On ons 15 dec 2010 19:20:28 CET, Nikolay Shopik wrote
I did play more with gmail as example, and notice. If I send email
from web interface SPF always matched and OK. If I'm using MUA to send
mail via SMTP it never fail or pass SPF rule. Probably new "R
On ons 15 dec 2010 19:34:12 CET, Nikolay Shopik wrote
I probably mean "sent" word, I don't use sendmail. My MUA is Thunderbird.
thunderbird use smtp, web apps does not use smtp ?
that would explain why its working or not
logs please
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
On 12/15/2010 1:00 PM, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
> On 15/12/2010 1:32 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> On 12/15/2010 11:57 AM, Andy Jezierski wrote:
>>> Sorry all,
>>>
>>> Been away from the list for quite some time. Just updated SA from
>>> 3.2.5 to 3.3.1. Have been trying to find a list of sa-update c
On ons 15 dec 2010 20:05:46 CET, Nikolay Shopik wrote
Both using smtp when delivering mail to my server, difference is
only in headers.
no logs ?
have you configured envelope sender in spamassassin ?
or better yet readed
perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::S
On 15/12/2010 3:51 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
The khop rules are good. I thought the 2tld stuff had been pulled into
SA as 20_aux_tlds.cf?
It has, but the Daryl edited one has some additional stuff (I think)
that isn't in there. There is conditional code that enables certain
rules in the file dep
Problem was in "spf: relayed through one or more trusted relays, cannot
use header-based Envelope-From"
always_trust_envelope_sender 1 is helps in my case, both of my trusted
relays are 127.0.0.1.
On 15.12.10 22:29, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On ons 15 dec 2010 20:05:46 CET, Nikolay Shopik wrote
B
On ons 15 dec 2010 22:58:29 CET, Nikolay Shopik wrote
Problem was in "spf: relayed through one or more trusted relays,
cannot use header-based Envelope-From"
always_trust_envelope_sender 1 is helps in my case, both of my
trusted relays are 127.0.0.1.
so more then one header is needed in you
On 16/12/10 01:04, Benny Pedersen wrote:
so more then one header is needed in your case ?
Well SA only see first header, second header added after mail
re-inserted into queue after SA check.
What I don't understand is why it was working for some hosts before,
because there always at least one
22 matches
Mail list logo
