Thanks for all the informative replies.
For the short term, I will just whitelist the address in question.
Perhaps my setup is crap. I don't have enough SPAM to train bayes. In
the past two years, I have gotten maybe, 10? spam emails. Basically, the
server is for myself and a couple family member
many thanks for read only accounts :/
Original besked
Emne: Re: SPF_FAIL
Dato: 2020-11-05 09:05
Afsender: "Reindl Harald (privat)"
Modtager: Benny Pedersen , users@spamassassin.apache.org
Am 05.11.20 um 02:42 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
Bill Cole skrev den 2020-11-05 00:21:
1
Bill Cole skrev den 2020-11-05 04:22:
On 4 Nov 2020, at 20:42, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Bill Cole skrev den 2020-11-05 00:21:
1. Incorrect SPF records are not rare. Even '-all' records with some
permitted IPs.
envelope sender changes on nexthop
Irrelevant to the problem cited, which is simpl
RW wrote:
>
> Please don't hijack existing threads.
Oh, sorry about that.
--
Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
2:5005/49@fidonet http://vas.tomsk.ru/
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Victor Sudakov skrev den 2020-11-04 15:47:
>
> > 0.0 SPF_FAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail)
>
> feel free to add into local.cf
>
> score SPF_FAIL (5) (5) (5) (5)
>
> this will add 5 points to default score
Is that sarcasm, Benny? I don't des
On 05/11/2020 21:54, Victor Sudakov wrote:
> An SPF fail is by no means a sure sign of spam. It can be some indicator
> of spamicity (as I thought), but not a decisive sign thereof.
SPF was never designed to be anti-spam, although on face value it does
have that ability given that spammers impers
Victor Sudakov skrev den 2020-11-04 15:47:
> 0.0 SPF_FAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail)
Benny Pedersen wrote: feel free to add into local.cf
score SPF_FAIL (5) (5) (5) (5)
this will add 5 points to default score
On 05.11.20 18:54, Victor Sudakov wrote:
Is that
Bill Cole skrev den 2020-11-05 04:22:
On 4 Nov 2020, at 20:42, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Bill Cole skrev den 2020-11-05 00:21:
1. Incorrect SPF records are not rare. Even '-all' records with some
permitted IPs.
envelope sender changes on nexthop
Irrelevant to the problem cited, which is simpl
On 5 Nov 2020, at 5:52, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Bill Cole skrev den 2020-11-05 04:22:
On 4 Nov 2020, at 20:42, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Bill Cole skrev den 2020-11-05 00:21:
1. Incorrect SPF records are not rare. Even '-all' records with
some
permitted IPs.
envelope sender changes on nexthop
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > Victor Sudakov skrev den 2020-11-04 15:47:
> > >
> > > > 0.0 SPF_FAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail)
>
> > Benny Pedersen wrote: feel free to add into local.cf
> > > score SPF_FAIL (5) (5) (5) (5)
> > >
> > > this will add 5 points
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020, Thomas Anderson wrote:
Thanks for all the informative replies.
For the short term, I will just whitelist the address in question.
Perhaps my setup is crap. I don't have enough SPAM to train bayes. In
the past two years, I have gotten maybe, 10? spam emails. Basically, the
s
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020, Axb wrote:
On 11/5/20 4:31 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020, RW wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2020 18:48:48 -0500
Bill Cole wrote:
On 4 Nov 2020, at 13:31, Thomas Anderson wrote:
* 1.8 MISSING_MIMEOLE Message has X-MSMail-Priority, but
no X-MimeOLE
In addition
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020, Victor Sudakov wrote:
Moreover, after reading other replies in the thread, I am even begining to
doubt the wizdom of rejecting hard SPF fails in the MTA (which I do in
some installations).
"it depends".
Doing that for certain domains - like, large banks - would probably be
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 10:50:08 +0100
Thomas Anderson wrote:
> Thanks for all the informative replies.
>
> For the short term, I will just whitelist the address in question.
>
> Perhaps my setup is crap. I don't have enough SPAM to train bayes. In
> the past two years, I have gotten maybe, 10? spam
14 matches
Mail list logo
