Mailing List Archive by Gossamer Threads http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/ en-us (c) Gossamer Threads Inc. All rights reserved. 16 May 2008 22:02:17 -0800 120 75 23 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/ http://www.gossamer-threads.com/images/lists/rss_logo.jpg iMail News Gateway Server v3.1 (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc. Mai 10 May 2008 22:00:02 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33745 iMail News Gateway Server v3.1 (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc. Mai 03 May 2008 22:00:01 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33712 iMail News Gateway Server v3.1 (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc. Mai 26 Apr 2008 22:00:01 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33693 On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Grant Peel wrote: > When I have an SPF record like: > > a:reflexion.net > > Should it allow for domain names like: > > asp-0. 24 Apr 2008 08:48:42 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33674 Hi all, When I have an SPF record like: a:reflexion.net Should it allow for domain names like: asp-0.reflexion.net ? If not, can wildcards be use 24 Apr 2008 06:52:45 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33671 On Wednesday 23 April 2008 16:19:58 Frank Ellermann wrote: > Scott Kitterman wrote: > > Which validator is "the" validator? > > Your validator... > > 23 Apr 2008 13:53:19 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33667 Scott Kitterman wrote: > Which validator is "the" validator? Your validator... > AFAIK mine does this already. ...great, how does this work ? T 23 Apr 2008 13:19:58 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33666 On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:01:16 +0200 "Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote: >Hi, is it simple to add a "semantical" check to the validator 23 Apr 2008 05:35:28 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33662 Hi, is it simple to add a "semantical" check to the validator ? If yes checks to see if included domains have an SPF record would make sense, and a c 23 Apr 2008 00:01:16 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33661 iMail News Gateway Server v3.1 (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc. Mai 19 Apr 2008 20:31:29 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33660 Frank Ellermann wrote: > Okay, I guess <http://www.openspf.org/Modifier/exp> > could say a tiny bit more about this topic... ;-) Thanx > [.[. Person 15 Apr 2008 22:57:39 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33639 Scott Kitterman wrote: > we conciously decided to ignore it [...] > Am I remembering the right internationalization issue? We didn't *ignore* it <sh 15 Apr 2008 20:40:48 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33638 My recollection is that the internationalization work was going on in parallel to the design of SPF and we conciously decided to ignore it. If ther 15 Apr 2008 04:39:13 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33630 Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> For a local part "Q&A" in "Q&A"@domain.example it >> could break: http://domain.example/why?user=Q&A > That's a good on 15 Apr 2008 01:46:16 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33629 Frank Ellermann wrote: > For a local part "Q&A" in "Q&A"@domain.example it could break: > http://domain.example/why?user=Q&A That's a good one, it i 14 Apr 2008 23:10:55 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33628 Alessandro Vesely wrote: > Actually, an example with uppercase macros would be most welcome > in the specs. If you feel like writing one on the FAQ 14 Apr 2008 02:17:26 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33618 Frank Ellermann wrote: > Also modified: <http://www.openspf.org/FAQ/Hints_for_ISPs> CIDR notation allows to collect a huge number of IPs within a re 14 Apr 2008 01:19:56 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33617 Kudos to you! Frank Ellermann wrote: > New article: > SPF Internationalization <http://www.openspf.org/FAQ/I18N> That's Greek to me, though. Actual 14 Apr 2008 00:51:30 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33616 New article: SPF Internationalization <http://www.openspf.org/FAQ/I18N> Also modified: <http://www.openspf.org/FAQ/Hints_for_ISPs> I've moved the " 13 Apr 2008 22:49:11 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33615 iMail News Gateway Server v3.1 (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc. Mai 12 Apr 2008 20:35:57 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33613 On 08/04/2008, ram <ram@netcore.co.in> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 13:20 +0100, Peter Bowyer wrote: > > On 08/04/2008, ram <ram@netcore.co.in> wrot 08 Apr 2008 06:08:14 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33584 On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 13:20 +0100, Peter Bowyer wrote: > On 08/04/2008, ram <ram@netcore.co.in> wrote: > > When we run spam checks for incoming mail , 08 Apr 2008 05:53:13 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33583 "ram" <ram@netcore.co.in> wrote: > Is there a shared list of trustable domains that can be looked up > ( via DNS preferably ) Maybe <http://www.ha 08 Apr 2008 05:52:00 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33582 On 08/04/2008, ram <ram@netcore.co.in> wrote: > When we run spam checks for incoming mail , I would like to skip spam > checks if mail is SPF passed a 08 Apr 2008 05:20:23 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33581 When we run spam checks for incoming mail , I would like to skip spam checks if mail is SPF passed and mail is from ( A well known bank , my travel ag 08 Apr 2008 05:04:40 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33580 For info, for those who haven't seen it yet (882 KB, 15 pages): http://www.maawg.org/about/publishedDocuments/MAAWG_Email_Authentication_Paper.pdf F 07 Apr 2008 17:59:14 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33578 On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote: > > For the test suite allowing both is simple. But insisting on > > "whatever you do be consistent" in 07 Apr 2008 09:14:01 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33577 On 07/04/2008, Grant Peel <gpeel@thenetnow.com> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > I am brand new to this list so please forgive me if this question has been as 07 Apr 2008 00:55:20 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33574 Grant Peel wrote: > > All or our email servers run Exim 4.x as the MTA. There are different indications in http://www.openspf.org/Implementations 07 Apr 2008 00:43:13 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33573 On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > > > You had me convinced that PermError was better than nomatch. > > LOL, for 06 Apr 2008 23:38:24 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33570 On Sun, 6 Apr 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > PermError => add note that this is about a syntactically invalid > > <target-name> for DN 06 Apr 2008 19:39:23 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33567 Hi all, I am brand new to this list so please forgive me if this question has been asked before. All or our email servers run Exim 4.x as the MTA. I 06 Apr 2008 17:34:12 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33565 iMail News Gateway Server v3.1 (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc. Mai 05 Apr 2008 22:00:01 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33562 This seems sufficiently on-topic for this list: The 2008 Conference on Email and Anti-Spam submission deadline is approaching, and has been extended 02 Apr 2008 06:33:50 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33556 Hi, thanks for your detailed discussion about this term. I think the best way in handling obviously malformed SPF records is generally to reject (sa 01 Apr 2008 10:58:00 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33551 Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> Nobody is forced to publish a sender policy. When folks do it >> they will hopefully cover their HELOs and their mail ad 31 Mar 2008 23:03:20 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33541 Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > I suggest standardizing a Received-SPF tag for heuristic > results (and I have a long and growing list of them). > I use 31 Mar 2008 22:22:07 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33540 On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote: > My example, "v=spf1" "a" "mx" "-all", is somewhat different. Most > important is the fact that th 31 Mar 2008 17:49:03 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33539 On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:34:59PM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Is it? Where? > > 3.1.3, multiple strings in a DNS record: > > | IN TXT "v=sp 31 Mar 2008 14:49:56 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33538 Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote: >> Ditto, trying to outsmart others is often a recipe for >> disaster. > Then the OP should assume "\"v=spf1 ... wa 31 Mar 2008 14:34:59 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33537 On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 07:19:01PM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote: > > > See RFC 760, section 3.2, 1st paragraph. > > 31 Mar 2008 13:51:12 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33535 [Spoiler warning: Off topic] > Have you checked that RFC 760 is the oldest source > for the robustness principle in RFCs ? I just stumbled over an i 31 Mar 2008 12:43:50 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33534 On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Stephan Seitz wrote: > Recently, I found a few ISPs publishing their SPF records as > IN TXT "\"v=spf1 .... \"" inst 31 Mar 2008 10:22:13 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33532 Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote: > See RFC 760, section 3.2, 1st paragraph. Ugh, so far only Bruce Lilly and John Klensin got me with RFCs older than 31 Mar 2008 10:19:01 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33528 On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 03:55:58PM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote: > Hi listmembers, > > Recently, I found a few ISPs publishing their SPF records as > I 31 Mar 2008 07:37:31 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33527 Hi listmembers, Recently, I found a few ISPs publishing their SPF records as IN TXT "\"v=spf1 .... \"" instead of IN TXT "v=sp 31 Mar 2008 06:55:58 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33526 Frank Ellermann wrote: > Alessandro Vesely wrote: > >> AFAIK, SPF specs still mandate to add a TXT or SPF record for each >> subdomain. IME, that is 31 Mar 2008 00:43:28 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33525 iMail News Gateway Server v3.1 (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc. Mai 29 Mar 2008 22:00:02 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33523 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Alessandro Vesely wrote: > BTW, is there a draft and/or a schedule for next SPF spec update? For the r 28 Mar 2008 10:03:45 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33518 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Frank Ellermann wrote: > Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > > I was for TempError myself. But no match is ok. 28 Mar 2008 09:47:16 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33517 Alessandro Vesely wrote: > AFAIK, SPF specs still mandate to add a TXT or SPF record for each > subdomain. IME, that is one of the most frequent omis 27 Mar 2008 10:32:10 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33510 On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 08:09 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > The largest case where it's blocked (AFAIK, I've never tested it > myself) is the Great Fi 27 Mar 2008 07:57:54 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33509 Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > I was for TempError myself. But no match is ok. Okay, let's say TempError is out, depending on how we read RFC 4408 tha 27 Mar 2008 06:27:49 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33508 AFAIK, SPF specs still mandate to add a TXT or SPF record for each subdomain. IME, that is one of the most frequent omissions in SPF configurations. T 26 Mar 2008 19:34:58 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33507 On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote: > <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.devel/1831> > <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.s 26 Mar 2008 18:35:58 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33506 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Julian Mehnle wrote: > [ "a:<64chars>.bar" / "a:%{macro-that-expands-to-64+chars}.bar" ] > > I have tho 26 Mar 2008 15:16:28 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33503 iMail News Gateway Server v3.1 (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc. Mai 22 Mar 2008 22:00:02 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33482 For those of you running Debian Stable (Etch) interested in doing SPF checking with Postfix, you can now get what you need from etch-bakcports. Inst 20 Mar 2008 13:16:59 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33456 Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > An official evaluation of experience with the "experimental" RFC. Yes... > Neither really requires a council at this p 19 Mar 2008 02:58:51 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33439 On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > >I maybe remembering wrong, but I thought we changed t 18 Mar 2008 15:29:20 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33437 On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >I maybe remembering wrong, but I thought we changed the TERM to 2 years. > > > I don't think so, but w 18 Mar 2008 14:23:51 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33436 On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:47:11 -0600 Boyd Lynn Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com> wrote: >Hello, > >I maybe remembering wrong, but I thought we changed the TER 18 Mar 2008 14:10:45 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33435 Hello, I maybe remembering wrong, but I thought we changed the TERM to 2 years. Thanks, -- Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com> ZENEZ 1042 East Fort U 18 Mar 2008 09:47:11 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33434 iMail News Gateway Server v3.1 (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc. Mai 15 Mar 2008 22:00:01 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33427 iMail News Gateway Server v3.1 (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc. Mai 08 Mar 2008 21:00:01 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33411 Meng Weng Wong wrote: > the 80/20 rule would make such a utility useful, even with the > caveat that it only operates on a subset of valid SPF record 06 Mar 2008 11:38:31 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33405 On Mar 6, 2008, at 7:09 AM, <Jason.Price@thomson.com> <Jason.Price@thomson.com> wrote: > I apologize if this is out of scope for this list - I wasn 06 Mar 2008 09:05:13 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33404 On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Peter Bowyer wrote: > > Anyway, I'm looking for a utility that would allow me to query the SPF > > record for a given domain, and 06 Mar 2008 08:37:43 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33403 On 06/03/2008, Jason.Price@thomson.com <Jason.Price@thomson.com> wrote: > > > I apologize if this is out of scope for this list - I wasn't sure, so fi 06 Mar 2008 07:22:23 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33402 I apologize if this is out of scope for this list - I wasn't sure, so figured I'd give it a shot... :) Anyway, I'm looking for a utility that would 06 Mar 2008 07:09:23 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33401 Michael Deutschmann wrote: > The v0.0 draft of SWK-SPF is already in xml2rfc format. Great, from that point to an Internet Draft is easy, you can s 05 Mar 2008 11:01:27 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33394 On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote: > You can use the xml2rfc format to produce "private" drafts, > without submitting them as Internet Draft, 04 Mar 2008 21:47:25 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33382 Michael Deutschmann wrote: > SWK-SPF is unlikely to "hit IETF servers in the form of an > Internet Draft", since I'm allergic to RFC lawyering and > 04 Mar 2008 20:25:48 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33381 On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote: > And recently there was a Tenbox proposal in this direction, > I'll try to look at it again when it hits I 04 Mar 2008 16:57:39 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33380 Don Lee wrote: [Quotes rearranged] > It's dead. I'll file it appropritately. +1 It's still possible to create a similar SMTP extension with anoth 04 Mar 2008 11:04:18 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33376 At 11:35 AM +0100 3/3/08, Frank Ellermann wrote: >Don Lee wrote: > >> The basic idea is straightforward and has advantages in both >> implementation a 03 Mar 2008 22:07:24 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33372 Don Lee wrote: > The basic idea is straightforward and has advantages in both > implementation and deployment. Apparently straightforward, but actua 03 Mar 2008 02:35:20 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33362 On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, Don Lee wrote: > [... regarding RFC 4405 as a solution to the forwarding problem ...] > Too bad. The basic idea is straightforwar 02 Mar 2008 19:26:40 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33361 On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 19:20:33 -0600 Don Lee <spfdiscuss@caution.icompute.com> wrote: >>On Sunday 02 March 2008 14:40, Don Lee wrote: >>> RFC 4405 (SUBM 02 Mar 2008 18:37:24 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33360 >On Sunday 02 March 2008 14:40, Don Lee wrote: >> RFC 4405 (SUBMITTER) seems to me a good, workable idea that when combined >> with SPF, could go a lo 02 Mar 2008 17:20:33 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33359 Devin Ganger wrote: > Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > > > I never used any of those. Can anyone briefl 02 Mar 2008 17:03:10 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33358 On Sunday 02 March 2008 14:40, Don Lee wrote: > RFC 4405 (SUBMITTER) seems to me a good, workable idea that when combined > with SPF, could go a long 02 Mar 2008 12:02:36 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33357 RFC 4405 (SUBMITTER) seems to me a good, workable idea that when combined with SPF, could go a long way toward solving "the forwarding problem". Is t 02 Mar 2008 11:40:18 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33356 iMail News Gateway Server v3.1 (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc. Mai 01 Mar 2008 21:00:02 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33354 On Tuesday 26 February 2008 10:01, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tuesday 26 February 2008 07:57, ram wrote: > > I think the oft repeated "SPF-breaks-for 29 Feb 2008 05:02:59 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33346 Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > > I never used any of those. Can anyone briefly mention the > > filtering 28 Feb 2008 11:59:12 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33345 On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > In addition, we should consider widely used commercial MTAs, such as > * Microsoft Exchange, > * Lotu 28 Feb 2008 09:16:28 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33344 Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> >> I'd still be interested in knowing what an API to modify MAIL FROM >> 28 Feb 2008 00:45:03 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33343 The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Simple Mail Transfer Protocol ' <draft-klensin 27 Feb 2008 18:24:51 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33342 On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > > [An MTA maintainer] *should* be interested in allowing user extensions 27 Feb 2008 13:05:30 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33341 Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:26 AM To: spf-discuss@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Top problems with SPF acceptance Jim Hermann wrot 27 Feb 2008 11:24:34 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33340 Alessandro, Great post. I am the last to want to throw a wrench into forward progress for SPF, but before we find that "nice program that did The 27 Feb 2008 11:22:45 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33339 Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > [An MTA maintainer] *should* be interested in allowing user extensions > (via postfix policy daemons or milter api) to mod 27 Feb 2008 10:20:07 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33338 On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, ram wrote: > On the postfix list you got a reply from He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named :-) > He was clearly not interested in implemen 27 Feb 2008 08:21:43 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33337 On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 10:01 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tuesday 26 February 2008 07:57, ram wrote: > > I think the oft repeated "SPF-breaks-for 27 Feb 2008 06:31:46 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33336 On Wednesday 27 February 2008 04:44, Ian Eiloart wrote: > --On 26 February 2008 10:01:02 -0500 Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> > > wrote: > > On 27 Feb 2008 05:09:51 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33335 --On 26 February 2008 10:01:02 -0500 Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> wrote: > On Tuesday 26 February 2008 07:57, ram wrote: >> I think the oft 27 Feb 2008 01:44:25 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33333 On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, ram wrote: > When I tell customers to use SPF to prevent forged spams from their > ids , they simply give the forwarding excuse 26 Feb 2008 10:25:29 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33331 Jim Hermann wrote: > I am using mime-defang to change the envelope sender for all > incoming emails that will be forwarded to an external email > addr 26 Feb 2008 09:26:56 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33330 Frank Ellermann wrote: > I'm too lazy to dig in the list archive today. Is that all a > hallucination on my side, RFC 4408 always wanted PermError fo 26 Feb 2008 09:18:04 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/33329