On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 09:14, Dustin D. Trammell wrote:
Greg Wooledge wrote:
I've been running this for about 3 days now. It seems to work fine,
but I've been using "behavior 1" (just add a header, don't block) on
general principle.
Same here, I set mine up in the same configuration a couple of days ago.
It *would* have caught this message, if the domain had used -all
instead
of ?all in their SPF record:
So far mine has not gotten any SPF fails (at least that did not get
encapsulated by SpamAssassin also, makes them hard to filter on),
however I have gotten two explicit SPF passes, one from livejournal.com
and one from gamefly.com. It would be nice to have this implementation
be able to set/unset environment variables on the various results of the
SPF check, so that I could unset QMAILQUEUE on explicit SPF pass or fail
and bypass the spam filters.
libspf (http://libspf.org) has such a provision. In your tcp.smtp you
can set SPF_ACTION="0" to disable the SPF check for that host/netblock.
I could go further, and permit the application of specific responses to
a host/netblock which might actually end up better for those wishing to
still have an email processed, but which to force a pass. That being
said however, a pass is easily forced by simply publishing the
appropriate SPF record...
I'm pretty sure that Christophes patch is likely capable of doing
something like this easily if it doesn't already.
Cheers,
James
--
James Couzens,
Programmer
Current projects:
http://libspf.org
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.5.txt
Wiki: http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)½§Åv¼ð¦¾Øß´ë ù1Ií-»Fqx(_dot_)com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part