Mailing List Archive by Gossamer Threads http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/ en-us (c) Gossamer Threads Inc. All rights reserved. 23 Nov 2009 05:36:28 -0800 120 75 23 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/ http://www.gossamer-threads.com/images/lists/rss_logo.jpg Hi there, On Sat, 21 Nov 2009, Thomas Harold wrote: > What is the current thinking on rejecting at the SMTP transaction if you > encounter an SPF fa 21 Nov 2009 07:10:04 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35349 iMail News Gateway Server v3.1 (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc. Mai 07 Nov 2009 23:00:02 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35309 On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 21:25:17 +0100 Wojciech Scigala <libspf2.org@wojtus.net> wrote: >On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 02:55:30PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: 07 Nov 2009 12:33:29 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35308 On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 02:55:30PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I think you should take note of such domains and mark all mail from them as > bad 07 Nov 2009 12:25:17 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35307 On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 20:45:25 +0100 Wojciech Scigala <libspf2.org@wojtus.net> wrote: >Hello, > >Sometimes I meet a badly configured SPF entries for dom 07 Nov 2009 11:55:30 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35306 Hello, Sometimes I meet a badly configured SPF entries for domains, which contain "+all" elements. I've also met a domain with entry like this: ip4: 07 Nov 2009 11:45:25 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35305 At 03:40 03/11/2009 Tuesday, Stuart D. Gathman wrote: >On Tue, 3 Nov 2009, alan wrote: > >> ?? when and how are these different? >> i am assuming tha 02 Nov 2009 20:35:27 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35301 On Tue, 3 Nov 2009, alan wrote: > ?? when and how are these different? > i am assuming that perhaps %{d}==domain of current spf record but I cannot > 02 Nov 2009 19:40:27 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35299 o = domain of <sender> d = <domain> ?? when and how are these different? i am assuming that perhaps %{d}==domain of current spf record bu 02 Nov 2009 16:08:21 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35298 iMail News Gateway Server v3.1 (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc. Mai 01 Nov 2009 00:20:46 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35296 iMail News Gateway Server v3.1 (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc. Mai 24 Oct 2009 22:00:03 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35284 Ian Eiloart wrote: >>> I think it's reasonable to assume that a domain operator won't permit >>> one user to spoof another user's sender address. If t 23 Oct 2009 08:36:31 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35280 David MacQuigg wrote: >>> I imagine that sender reputation services will become as >>> widespread as IP reputation services. >> >> If the domain coop 23 Oct 2009 06:27:48 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35279 On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Stuart Gathman Wrote: >On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Steven Dorst wrote: > >> Spear Phishing? That's a new term for me. How is that differ 21 Oct 2009 11:57:12 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35230 On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Steven Dorst wrote: > Spear Phishing? That's a new term for me. How is that different from > Phishing? Spear Phishing is aimed 21 Oct 2009 11:15:21 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35229 --On 19 October 2009 07:01:57 -0700 David MacQuigg <macquigg@ece.arizona.edu> wrote: ><<snip>> >The one thing that particularly concerns me at the mo 21 Oct 2009 06:33:45 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35226 Ian Eiloart wrote: > > > --On 16 October 2009 21:37:20 -0400 Hector Santos > <spf-discuss@winserver.com> wrote: >> >> http://www.winserver. 21 Oct 2009 06:00:13 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35224 --On 19 October 2009 07:01:57 -0700 David MacQuigg <macquigg@ece.arizona.edu> wrote: > "Would have" is not enough. Too many websites like this are 21 Oct 2009 03:27:35 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35223 Gino Cerullo <gcerullo <at> pixelpointstudios.com> writes: > > I see no evidence that the problem is due to SPF. Have you tried > contacting Hotma 19 Oct 2009 13:44:43 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35207 At 17:48 19/10/2009 Monday, Jeff wrote: >First of all, I would like to thank those who have responded and note that I >changed the title of the subj 19 Oct 2009 10:28:19 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35200 On 19-Oct-09, at 12:48 PM, Jeff wrote: > First of all, I would like to thank those who have responded and > note that I > changed the title of the 19 Oct 2009 10:01:03 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35199 First of all, I would like to thank those who have responded and note that I changed the title of the subject to reflect the latest situation. Pleas 19 Oct 2009 09:48:07 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35198 Ian Eiloart wrote: > > --On 16 October 2009 14:27:28 -0700 David MacQuigg > <macquigg@ece.arizona.edu> wrote: > >>>>>> OK, I think I understand now w 19 Oct 2009 07:01:57 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35197 Alessandro Vesely wrote: >>> 2) Do you [think to] publish that data? >> >> Yep. I imagine that sender reputation services will become as >> widespre 19 Oct 2009 07:00:41 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35196 --On 19 October 2009 14:06:37 +0200 Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote: > Ian Eiloart wrote: >> I'm not talking about what we do at Sussex[... 19 Oct 2009 06:43:22 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35195 Ian Eiloart wrote: > I'm not talking about what we do at Sussex[...] Ooops, I misunderstood your words :-( > I mean that you don't need a comprehens 19 Oct 2009 05:06:37 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35194 --On 17 October 2009 15:06:11 +0200 Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote: > Ian Eiloart wrote: >>> Without having some kind of worldwide individ 19 Oct 2009 02:35:14 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35193 --On 16 October 2009 19:06:02 -0400 Sanford Whiteman <sandy@cypressintegrated.com> wrote: >> How do the spammers know? Well, as soon as they infect 19 Oct 2009 02:19:11 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35192 --On 16 October 2009 14:27:28 -0700 David MacQuigg <macquigg@ece.arizona.edu> wrote: > >> <http://www.scamnailer.info/> has a script that will updat 19 Oct 2009 02:13:38 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35191 --On 16 October 2009 21:37:20 -0400 Hector Santos <spf-discuss@winserver.com> wrote: > > http://www.winserver.com/public/antispam > > So I t 19 Oct 2009 02:02:09 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35190 At 04:58 18/10/2009 Sunday, Sanford Whiteman wrote: >You should use the tests at http://www.kitterman.com/spf/validate.html >to check your prospectiv 18 Oct 2009 08:03:30 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35189 iMail News Gateway Server v3.1 (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc. Mai 17 Oct 2009 23:00:03 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35188 You should use the tests at http://www.kitterman.com/spf/validate.html to check your prospective records. From a glance at compatibleweb.com, I thin 17 Oct 2009 20:58:23 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35187 Dear sirs: 1) I have a webserver/mail server that runs on a single IP address. 2) The domain is compatibleweb.com (mail.compatibleweb.com) 3) I hav 17 Oct 2009 20:26:31 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35186 Ian Eiloart wrote: >> Without having some kind of worldwide individual identity system, it just >> can't be done. > > No, we can. At the university 17 Oct 2009 06:06:11 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35185 Hector Santos wrote: > Anyway, some clear results of this research did help mold our anti-spam > products are: > > - The majority of the filters 16 Oct 2009 19:15:37 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35184 Ian Eiloart wrote: > > --On 16 October 2009 10:11:50 -0400 "Stuart D. Gathman" >> >> The REJECT itself is the feedback. The spammer manually >> 16 Oct 2009 18:37:20 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35183 It is good to see a rebirth of SPF + DKIM integration discussions. The issue, as it always been, is the complexity and the different ways and "philo 16 Oct 2009 18:06:58 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35182 > How do the spammers know? Well, as soon as they infect a PC, they > get all the addresses from the M$ AddressBook and phone home. +1 on the prev 16 Oct 2009 16:06:02 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35181 Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, David MacQuigg wrote: > > >>> Absolutely, but you want to check the DKIM signature before applying 16 Oct 2009 16:02:18 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35180 On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, David MacQuigg wrote: > > Absolutely, but you want to check the DKIM signature before applying the > > whitelist. Otherwise, eve 16 Oct 2009 15:11:37 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35179 Ian Eiloart wrote: > > --On 16 October 2009 08:08:22 -0700 David MacQuigg > <macquigg@ece.arizona.edu> wrote: > >> Ian Eiloart wrote: >>> >>> --On 14 16 Oct 2009 14:27:28 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35178 --On 16 October 2009 08:08:22 -0700 David MacQuigg <macquigg@ece.arizona.edu> wrote: > Ian Eiloart wrote: >> >> --On 14 October 2009 15:08:15 -0700 16 Oct 2009 09:48:55 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35177 Ian Eiloart wrote: > > --On 14 October 2009 15:08:15 -0700 David MacQuigg > <macquigg@ece.arizona.edu> wrote: > >> OK, I think I understand now what 16 Oct 2009 08:08:22 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35176 --On 16 October 2009 10:11:50 -0400 "Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart@bmsi.com> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Ian Eiloart wrote: > >> > The common criteri 16 Oct 2009 07:41:43 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35175 On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Ian Eiloart wrote: > > The common criterion for dropping is that by rejecting you are providing > > a free test machine for spam 16 Oct 2009 07:11:50 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35174 --On 14 October 2009 15:08:15 -0700 David MacQuigg <macquigg@ece.arizona.edu> wrote: > > OK, I think I understand now what you mean by "sender". Se 16 Oct 2009 02:29:32 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35173 --On 14 October 2009 20:35:16 +0200 Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote: > Ian Eiloart wrote: >>> One strategy I'm considering is to start reje 16 Oct 2009 02:17:54 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35172 alan wrote: >> The common criterion for dropping is that by rejecting you are providing a free test machine for spammers to keep trying various altern 15 Oct 2009 23:27:06 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35171 Ian Eiloart wrote: > --On 13 October 2009 10:25:15 -0700 David MacQuigg > <macquigg@ece.arizona.edu> wrote: >> Ian Eiloart wrote: >>> --On 13 October 14 Oct 2009 15:08:15 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35170 At 19:35 14/10/2009 Wednesday, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >Ian Eiloart wrote: >>>One strategy I'm considering is to start rejecting content filtered >> 14 Oct 2009 11:59:56 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35169 Ian Eiloart wrote: >> One strategy I'm considering is to start rejecting content filtered >> email (at end of message) > > We do that. We don't quara 14 Oct 2009 11:35:16 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35168 --On 13 October 2009 10:25:15 -0700 David MacQuigg <macquigg@ece.arizona.edu> wrote: > Ian Eiloart wrote: >> --On 13 October 2009 13:39:44 +0200 Ale 14 Oct 2009 04:36:34 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35167 On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Ian Eiloart wrote: > > > The advantage is that it permits trusted traditional forwarding. Which is > > > what's missing with SPF 13 Oct 2009 14:13:19 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35166 On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Ian Eiloart wrote: > > While gmail.com has so far managed to keep spammers under enough control > > to avoid a seriously bad rep 13 Oct 2009 12:40:39 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35165 Ian Eiloart wrote: > --On 13 October 2009 13:39:44 +0200 Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> > wrote: >> David MacQuigg wrote: >>> Ian Eiloart wrote: 13 Oct 2009 10:25:15 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35164 --On 13 October 2009 08:41:54 -0400 "Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart@bmsi.com> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Ian Eiloart wrote: > >> Nobody would be daft 13 Oct 2009 06:15:14 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35163 On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Ian Eiloart wrote: > Nobody would be daft enough to assign anything but neutral reputation to the > gmail.com domain, would they 13 Oct 2009 05:41:54 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35162 --On 13 October 2009 13:39:44 +0200 Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote: > David MacQuigg wrote: >> Ian Eiloart wrote: >>> If SPF fails, then l 13 Oct 2009 05:01:58 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35161 David MacQuigg wrote: > Ian Eiloart wrote: >> If SPF fails, then look for a DKIM signature. If you get a good one, >> you're likely seeing traditiona 13 Oct 2009 04:39:44 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35160 --On 12 October 2009 12:37:30 -0400 "Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart@bmsi.com> wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Ian Eiloart wrote: > >> > Then what's the ad 13 Oct 2009 01:53:52 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35159 On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Scott Kitterman wrote: > This is where I think you go astray. DKIM has no requirement for the "d" > domain and the body from dom 12 Oct 2009 17:44:16 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35156 On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:05:24 -0700 (PDT) Michael Deutschmann <michael@talamasca.ocis.net> wrote: >On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> So I 12 Oct 2009 11:53:12 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35154 On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:20:07 -0400 (EDT) "Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart@bmsi.com> wrote: >On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> >Without givi 12 Oct 2009 11:47:28 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35155 On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Scott Kitterman wrote: > So I still need to accept the message body to determine if it passed? Sometimes. Here's the matrix: S 12 Oct 2009 10:05:24 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35149 On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Ian Eiloart wrote: > > Then what's the advantge over SPF? > > The advantage is that it permits trusted traditional forwarding. 12 Oct 2009 09:37:30 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35148 On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:14:22 -0700 (PDT) Michael Deutschmann <michael@talamasca.ocis.net> wrote: >On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> OK, 12 Oct 2009 09:21:56 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35147 On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >Without giving up SPF's mailing list FP immunity, it gains the same > >forwarding FP immunity DKIM/ADS 12 Oct 2009 09:20:07 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35146 On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Scott Kitterman wrote: > OK, then what is the sender signing? The signature will lock down the same things as in DKIM/ADSP -- th 12 Oct 2009 09:14:22 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35145 On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 07:33:12 -0700 (PDT) Michael Deutschmann <michael@talamasca.ocis.net> wrote: >On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> >But 12 Oct 2009 08:25:44 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35144 Ian Eiloart wrote: >> >> Then what's the advantge over SPF? > > The advantage is that it permits trusted traditional forwarding. Which > is what's mi 12 Oct 2009 08:18:35 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35143 --On 12 October 2009 10:07:54 -0400 Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 07:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Michael Deutschmann > <m 12 Oct 2009 07:34:13 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35138 On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >But, *so* *does* *SPF*. And it's this very property that gives SPF its > >immunity to mailing list FPs 12 Oct 2009 07:33:12 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35137 On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 07:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Michael Deutschmann <michael@talamasca.ocis.net> wrote: >On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> > 12 Oct 2009 07:07:54 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35136 On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > > Relayers are free to change the MAIL FROM:, and far from blocking them from > > changing it, if they 12 Oct 2009 07:00:46 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35135 Michael Deutschmann wrote: > By envelope signature I don't mean a signature that *protects* the MAIL > FROM:/Return-Path: from modifications -- that 12 Oct 2009 06:25:16 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35134 On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Scott Kitterman wrote: > How does this happen? Mail from is a property of the SMTP dialogue that is > only added to the message 12 Oct 2009 05:36:27 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35129 On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:01:27 -0700 (PDT) Michael Deutschmann <michael@talamasca.ocis.net> wrote: >On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> Sinc 12 Oct 2009 05:06:39 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35128 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Scott Kitterman wrote: > Since mailing lists use their own envelope from, I guess I'm missing > something here. What would your 12 Oct 2009 04:01:27 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35127 Michael Deutschmann wrote: > I have a hard-fail DK record, since my commonsense understanding was that > people who subscribe to mailing lists must w 12 Oct 2009 03:18:00 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35126 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 03:50:43 -0700 (PDT) Michael Deutschmann <michael@talamasca.ocis.net> wrote: >On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, David MacQuigg wrote: >> I bel 11 Oct 2009 18:39:54 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35125 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, David MacQuigg wrote: > I believe it is possible to reject as soon as you see the DKIM-Signature > header, but the problem will b 11 Oct 2009 03:50:43 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35124 Michael Deutschmann wrote: > On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > (regarding a DKIM flag for SPF) > >> This can't be verified until the e 11 Oct 2009 02:53:11 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35123 iMail News Gateway Server v3.1 (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc. Mai 10 Oct 2009 23:00:02 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35122 On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Stuart D. Gathman wrote: (regarding a DKIM flag for SPF) > This can't be verified until the entire message is received. If you kn 10 Oct 2009 21:03:13 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35121 On fre 09 okt 2009 12:06:22 CEST, Alessandro Vesely wrote > As Scott says, the problem is that most mailing lists modify the > message in ways that 09 Oct 2009 19:55:59 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35118 Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Michael Deutschmann wrote: >> If I understand DKIM correctly, DKIM validators are to ignore DKIM >> si 09 Oct 2009 03:06:22 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35114 On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Ian Eiloart wrote: > This doesn't need a new protocol. When receiving messages, you should apply > SPF and DKIM tests, and apply r 07 Oct 2009 20:42:30 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35112 --On 6 October 2009 20:49:44 -0700 Michael Deutschmann <michael@talamasca.ocis.net> wrote: > On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On Tue, 6 07 Oct 2009 03:25:12 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35109 On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Michael Deutschmann > <michael@talamasca.ocis.net> wrote: > ... 06 Oct 2009 20:49:44 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35108 On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Michael Deutschmann <michael@talamasca.ocis.net> wrote: ... >But, the reason DKIM-ADSP suffers mailing list F 06 Oct 2009 20:23:33 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35107 On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Michael Deutschmann wrote: > If I understand DKIM correctly, DKIM validators are to ignore DKIM > signatures that sign what, to t 06 Oct 2009 20:16:25 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35105 I hinted at the following as an aside in my Forwarder Mitigation proposals, but no one really picked up on the idea. So I'm going to repeat it more d 06 Oct 2009 19:54:55 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35104 iMail News Gateway Server v3.1 (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc. Mai 26 Sep 2009 23:00:03 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35099 On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Hannah Schroeter wrote: > >Seriously, get a static IP and set up your own mail domain and MTA. > > Perhaps even more seriously: 24 Sep 2009 10:58:52 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35084 On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 19:34 +0530, ganeshkumar ijjada wrote: > sir my name ganesh kumar i wanna know about in gmail how to send a > message to no.of p 24 Sep 2009 05:50:17 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35083 Hi! On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:31:07AM -0400, Stuart D. Gathman wrote: >On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, ganeshkumar ijjada wrote: >> sir my name ganesh kumar i 24 Sep 2009 05:14:50 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35082 On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, ganeshkumar ijjada wrote: > sir my name ganesh kumar i wanna know about in gmail how to send a > message to no.of person's at a 23 Sep 2009 08:31:07 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35081 At 15:04 23/09/2009 Wednesday, ganeshkumar ijjada wrote: >sir my name ganesh kumar i wanna know about in gmail how to send a >message to no.of person 23 Sep 2009 08:05:35 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35080 sir my name ganesh kumar i wanna know about in gmail how to send a message to no.of person's at a time (above 100000)to my use my mail id plz reply im 23 Sep 2009 07:04:42 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/35079