Postfix.org SPF
in [Postfix]
|
From: mouss on 4 Jul 2010 22:29 JunkYardMail1(a)Verizon.net a �crit : > Some do not accept email from domains whose owner does not publish the > servers they authorize to transfer mail for their domain. > Then it's their problem. Please don't revive the old spf thread. spf has fans and opponents. $ host -t txt yahoo.com yahoo.com has no TXT record $ host -t txt mail.com mail.com has no TXT record $ host -t txt outblaze.com outblaze.com has no TXT record .... (same with "spf" instead of "txt"). > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Sahil Tandon" <sahil(a)FreeBSD.org> > Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 11:53 AM > To: <postfix-users(a)postfix.org> > Subject: Re: Postfix.org SPF > >> On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 11:45:39 -0700, JunkYardMail1(a)Verizon.net wrote: >> >>> How about publishing an SPF record for postfix.org. >> >> Why? >> >> -- >> Sahil Tandon <sahil(a)FreeBSD.org> >
From: Matt Hayes on 4 Jul 2010 22:29 On 07/04/2010 10:20 PM, JunkYardMail1(a)Verizon.net wrote: > Some do not accept email from domains whose owner does not publish the > servers they authorize to transfer mail for their domain. > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Sahil Tandon" <sahil(a)FreeBSD.org> > Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 11:53 AM > To: <postfix-users(a)postfix.org> > Subject: Re: Postfix.org SPF > >> On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 11:45:39 -0700, JunkYardMail1(a)Verizon.net wrote: >> >>> How about publishing an SPF record for postfix.org. >> >> Why? >> >> -- >> Sahil Tandon <sahil(a)FreeBSD.org> > Rejecting email souly on the fact that a domain doesn't publish an SPF is stupid. -Matt
From: JunkYardMail1 on 4 Jul 2010 22:51 Yahoo has ulterior motives? They wish to push their domain keys. Others probably likewise have ulterior motives. Do you also oppose SPF, and if so what is your motives? -------------------------------------------------- From: "mouss" <mouss(a)ml.netoyen.net> Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 7:29 PM To: <postfix-users(a)postfix.org> Subject: Re: Postfix.org SPF > JunkYardMail1(a)Verizon.net a �crit : >> Some do not accept email from domains whose owner does not publish the >> servers they authorize to transfer mail for their domain. >> > > Then it's their problem. Please don't revive the old spf thread. spf has > fans and opponents. > > $ host -t txt yahoo.com > yahoo.com has no TXT record > $ host -t txt mail.com > mail.com has no TXT record > $ host -t txt outblaze.com > outblaze.com has no TXT record > ... > (same with "spf" instead of "txt"). > > >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Sahil Tandon" <sahil(a)FreeBSD.org> >> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 11:53 AM >> To: <postfix-users(a)postfix.org> >> Subject: Re: Postfix.org SPF >> >>> On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 11:45:39 -0700, JunkYardMail1(a)Verizon.net wrote: >>> >>>> How about publishing an SPF record for postfix.org. >>> >>> Why? >>> >>> -- >>> Sahil Tandon <sahil(a)FreeBSD.org> >> >
From: JunkYardMail1 on 4 Jul 2010 22:53 What is stupid is to be so opposed to anti spam tools that have no significant downside. Makes one wonder about true motives. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Matt Hayes" <dominian(a)slackadelic.com> Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 7:29 PM To: <postfix-users(a)postfix.org> Subject: Re: Postfix.org SPF > On 07/04/2010 10:20 PM, JunkYardMail1(a)Verizon.net wrote: >> Some do not accept email from domains whose owner does not publish the >> servers they authorize to transfer mail for their domain. >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Sahil Tandon" <sahil(a)FreeBSD.org> >> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 11:53 AM >> To: <postfix-users(a)postfix.org> >> Subject: Re: Postfix.org SPF >> >>> On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 11:45:39 -0700, JunkYardMail1(a)Verizon.net wrote: >>> >>>> How about publishing an SPF record for postfix.org. >>> >>> Why? >>> >>> -- >>> Sahil Tandon <sahil(a)FreeBSD.org> >> > > > Rejecting email souly on the fact that a domain doesn't publish an SPF is > stupid. > > -Matt
From: Matt Hayes on 4 Jul 2010 22:59 n 07/04/2010 10:53 PM, JunkYardMail1(a)Verizon.net wrote: > What is stupid is to be so opposed to anti spam tools that have no > significant downside. > Makes one wonder about true motives. > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Matt Hayes" <dominian(a)slackadelic.com> > Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 7:29 PM > To: <postfix-users(a)postfix.org> > Subject: Re: Postfix.org SPF > >> On 07/04/2010 10:20 PM, JunkYardMail1(a)Verizon.net wrote: >>> Some do not accept email from domains whose owner does not publish the >>> servers they authorize to transfer mail for their domain. >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Sahil Tandon" <sahil(a)FreeBSD.org> >>> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 11:53 AM >>> To: <postfix-users(a)postfix.org> >>> Subject: Re: Postfix.org SPF >>> >>>> On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 11:45:39 -0700, JunkYardMail1(a)Verizon.net wrote: >>>> >>>>> How about publishing an SPF record for postfix.org. >>>> >>>> Why? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sahil Tandon <sahil(a)FreeBSD.org> >>> >> >> >> Rejecting email souly on the fact that a domain doesn't publish an SPF >> is stupid. >> >> -Matt > I'm not opposed to it and please stop TOP posting. -Matt
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Prev: Connection Refused on Port 25 Next: Postfix 2.7 for RHEL 5? |