Re: Sendmail white paper, SRS, and forwarding
2004-11-20 09:58:22
well, has anyone else used the sa-test(_at_)sendmail(_dot_)net?? Weird, since
the
update of their Autoresponder, i now get this message back:
sendmail.net Sender Authentication Auto-Responder $Revision: 1.1 $
This service runs at <sa-test(_at_)sendmail(_dot_)net> and allows remote users
to perform a simple, automated test to see if different Sender
Authentication schemes are working. Mail sent to this service
is checked by our Sender Authentication filters for any valid
credentials or signatures. A script receives the message, checks
for a special header with the results of the tests, and composes
this response message based on what it finds.
For more information about Sender Authentication, please visit:
http://sendmail.net/
We hope this service has been helpful to you.
Authentication System: Domain Keys
Result: (no result present)
Reporting host:
More information: http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
Sendmail milter: http://www.sendmail.net/dk-milter
Authentication System: Sender ID
Result: (no result present)
Reporting host:
More information: http://www.microsoft.com/senderid
Sendmail milter: http://www.sendmail.net/sid-milter
Authentication System: Sender Permitted From (SPF)
Result: (no result present)
Reporting host:
More information: http://spf.pobox.com/
Any ideas? Anyone else see similar results? I would have expected only
Sender-ID to fail, as i have this currently disabled, since it was
rejecting some critical emails my wife/business partner needed to
receive.
Michael Weiner
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta features
SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [STOP THREAD] Sendmail white paper (which is really about forwarding and -all), (continued)
- Re: Sendmail white paper, Michael Weiner
- Re: Sendmail white paper, SRS, and forwarding, Meng Weng Wong
- Re: Sendmail white paper, SRS, and forwarding, Michael Weiner
- Re: Sendmail white paper, SRS, and forwarding, wayne
- Re: Sendmail white paper, SRS, and forwarding, Michael Weiner
- Re: Sendmail white paper, SRS, and forwarding, Theo Schlossnagle
- Re: Sendmail white paper, SRS, and forwarding,
Michael Weiner <=
- Re: Sendmail white paper, SRS, and forwarding, Roger Moser
- Re: Sendmail white paper, SRS, and forwarding, David Woodhouse
- Re: Sendmail white paper, SRS, and forwarding, Douglas K. Fischer
- Re: Sendmail white paper, Roger Moser
- Re: Sendmail white paper, Michael Weiner
- Re: Sendmail white paper, Stuart D. Gathman
- Re: Sendmail white paper, Michael Weiner
- Re: Sendmail white paper, Chuck Mead
- Re: Sendmail white paper, Michael Weiner
- Re: Sendmail white paper, M Z R
|
Previous by Date: |
Re: Sendmail white paper, SRS, and forwarding, Theo Schlossnagle |
Next by Date: |
Re: Sendmail white paper, Roger Moser |
Previous by Thread: |
Re: Sendmail white paper, SRS, and forwarding, Theo Schlossnagle |
Next by Thread: |
Re: Sendmail white paper, SRS, and forwarding, Roger Moser |
Indexes: |
[Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |
|
|