Zitat von Binarus via Info-cyrus :
On 04.04.2016 18:12, Sebastian Hagedorn via Info-cyrus wrote:
Personally, I think that's a phenomenally stupid approach. As long
as you can't show me an RFC that says you MUST or even SHOULD use
SPF or DKIM, you're breaking SMTP.
I think it's a phenomena
Zitat von Binarus via Info-cyrus :
Combine SPF / DKIM with domain blacklisting, and then you *have* an
efficient spam fighting tool.
As stated the spam actually reaching our inboxes after around 90%
cutoff is valid DKIM/SPF signed as it is mostly from the big free
providers like Outl
On 04/05/2016 03:42 AM, lst_hoe02--- via Info-cyrus wrote:
Zitat von Binarus via Info-cyrus :
Combine SPF / DKIM with domain blacklisting, and then you *have* an
efficient spam fighting tool.
As stated the spam actually reaching our inboxes after around 90%
cutoff is valid DKIM/SPF sign
On 04.04.2016 21:50, Joseph Brennan via Info-cyrus wrote:
>
>> But with SPF or DKIM, you can immediately blacklist any sender
>> domain after having received SPAM from that domain.
>
> It would never be a phished stolen account, so that would be safe.
>
You are right. It is the only logical thi
On 04.04.2016 23:02, Vincent Fox via Info-cyrus wrote:
> I'll admit I am testing SPF as a greylisting measure.
> Your IP gets hardfail, you get 5min deferral.
>
> I don't delude myself it does anything other than catch maybe
> 5-10% of spammers that don't bother with retries. More often it
> seem
On 05.04.2016 09:42, lst_hoe02--- via Info-cyrus wrote:
>
> As stated the spam actually reaching our inboxes after around 90% cutoff is
> valid DKIM/SPF signed as it is mostly from the big free providers like
> Outlook.com, Google and Yahoo. Some other big share is from professional spam
> farm
On 05.04.2016 14:15, Alvin Starr via Info-cyrus wrote:
>
> I kind of have to agree with Andreas to some extent on this.
> SPF/DKIM does not help on incoming spam filtering all that much just because
> so few people use it and the default action is to accept mail that has no
> SPF/DKIM tagging.
On 05.04.2016 09:34, lst_hoe02--- via Info-cyrus wrote:
> The "we generally have to reject all messages which are not secured by SPF or
> DKIM" mean you want to force others to use non standard headers so in fact
> you are breaking SMTP RFC.
I think we don't. At least SPF works without additio
On Tue, 5 Apr 2016, lst_hoe02--- via Info-cyrus wrote:
Zitat von Binarus via Info-cyrus :
Combine SPF / DKIM with domain blacklisting, and then you *have* an
efficient spam fighting tool.
As stated the spam actually reaching our inboxes after around 90% cutoff is
valid DKIM/SPF signed
On 04/05/2016 11:33 AM, Andrew Morgan via Info-cyrus wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2016, lst_hoe02--- via Info-cyrus wrote:
Zitat von Binarus via Info-cyrus :
Combine SPF / DKIM with domain blacklisting, and then you *have* an
efficient spam fighting tool.
As stated the spam actually reaching o
> If you want to see flame wars even more pointless and/or entertaining than
> this one, check out the mailing lists for DMARC. ;-) They make these recent
> exchanges seem quaint by comparison.
I am sorry that this thread is not useful to you. I don't consider it a flame
war. Every party (exce
Hi Sebastian,
> after thinking about it, I think it's like this: I added a service that
> was
> configured to listen on a privileged port. But master has dropped
> privileges by that point, so it can't add such a listener. I just
> double-checked that I *can* add a listener at run-time if it's
I am looking for an open source Cisco Ironport type email message encryption
solution that is open source. I've looked for years but can't find anything.
Anyone have an ideas?
Paul
Cyrus Home Page: http://www.cyrusimap.org/
List Archives/Info: http://lists.andrew.cmu.edu/pipermail/info-c
13 matches
Mail list logo
