On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:12:13 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Thursday 26 October 2006 22:41, Jakub Moc wrote:
| > +1 ... SPF is broken by design.
|
| Right¹. Don't understand why it gets used either.
It gets used because of klieber.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail:
On Thursday 26 October 2006 22:41, Jakub Moc wrote:
> +1 ... SPF is broken by design.
Right¹. Don't understand why it gets used either.
Carsten
[1] http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/FGA/smtp-spf-is-harmful.html
pgp9zuYplnFtJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi!
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Facts:
> a) current SPF TXT record of our domain is "v=spf1 mx ptr ?all"
> b) I use my own MTA to send my @g.o messages.
> c) Probably I am not the only one who does that
d) I've just spent nearly an hour to debug an error that resulted
f
Alin Nastac napsal(a):
> The proper TXT record for our domain would be "v=spf1 +all", which
> translates (according to http://new.openspf.org/SPF_Record_Syntax ) as
> "the domain owner thinks that SPF is useless". And it really is useless,
> at the very least for our widespread organization.
+1
Facts:
a) current SPF TXT record of our domain is "v=spf1 mx ptr ?all"
b) I use my own MTA to send my @g.o messages.
c) Probably I am not the only one who does that
I've just evaluated SPF support in spamassassin and I've discovered that
SPF_NEUTRAL has a big fat score of 1.1.
I don't
