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 08:12:05 -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