http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters/820 Not sure if this is "news" or a FAQ item on how many people use SPF, or what. From: http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/11/10/Survey_One_DNS_server_in_10_is _vulnerable_1.html "Liu said that on the positive side, the survey turned up several items of good news. For instance, support for SPF -- the sender policy framework, which combats e-mail spoofing -- has risen over the last 12 months from 12.6 percent of the zones sampled to 16.7 percent." - Steve Yates - ITS, Inc. - Tagline file TAGLINES.TXT corrupt. Loading file MY_DIARY.TXT ~ Taglines by Taglinator: www.srtware.com ~ Steve Yates 2008-11-10T16:31:27 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters/819 Topic: The SPF website Name: Duck Organization: Hello, all. My domain name is: 591wed.com The SPF and MX record has created a very long period of time. But on this page: http://old.openspf.org/wizard.html?mydomain=591wed.com search my domain: 591wed.com, why can not find the SPF and MX redord? You can follow this steps for test and authentication: Use another method to detect： Run "cmd.exe", enter these elements: nslookup -qt=txt 591wed.com Reaults: Non-authoritative answer: 591wed.com text = "v=spf1 a mx mx:58.246.186.234. ~all" 591wed.com nameserver = ns2.dns.com.cn 591wed.com nameserver = ns1.dns.com.cn Enter these elements:nslookup -qt=mx 591wed.com Reaults: Non-authoritative answer: 591wed.com MX preference = 10, mail exchanger = 58.246.186.234 Thanks. Duck 2008-08-27T03:07:52 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters/818 Hello, I am unable to login to www.openspf.org. How do I setup login name and password to check our servers status. Best Regards, Shevali x7287 ----------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email immediately and destroy all copies of this message. ----------------------------------------------------- Shevali Aggarwal 2008-08-27T19:42:57 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters/814 Topic: The SPF website Name: Gabriel Dumitrescu Organization: Hi. I am not used to emails protocol, SPF, etc, but I have to setup an outbound gateway directing emails to a third party SMTP server. And I am told the followings (by Google Apps in a help page): _spf.google.com.300INTXT"v=spf1 ip4:216.239.32.0/19 ip4:64.233.160.0/19 ip4:66.249.80.0/20 ip4:72.14.192.0/18 ip4:209.85.128.0/17 ip4:66.102.0.0/20 ?all" My question is: how can I check an updated information regarding IPs? (for SPF I read on your SPF site about the validator - http://www.kitterman.com/spf/validate.html). That validator provides SPF records for a domain, but no IPs. Is this information (IPs) public, or each domain keeps this secret as to avoid bad guys (SPAM people) to use it? Thank you in advance for your kind assistance. Regards, Gabriel Dumitrescu Gabriel Dumitrescu 2008-08-21T08:12:24 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters/812 Topic: The SPF website Name: Terry Jackson Organization: Jackson Consulting Under Latest News: Working is not spelled correctly: "The Messaging Anti-Abuse Workining..." Terry Jackson 2008-08-14T16:51:42 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters/810 Frank, in facts I could only read the headline What was wrong with it? Curiously, I got "0 pages found for http://trusted-forwarders.org" also on web.archive.org: Hiding that stuff is apparently gaining popularity... :-/ So, should I send some special stuff somewhere to get an entry on the users' db? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [spf-discuss] Re: trusted-forwarders.org Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 01:06:18 +0200 From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz< at >gmail.com> Reply-To: spf-discuss< at >v2.listbox.com Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> To: spf-discuss< at >v2.listbox.com Yeah :-( "Learn the difference between forwarder and forwarders" is not exciting enough for the SPF main page. I reverted three edited pages, hiding News/2008-07-17 as "#PRIVATE". Apologies for this unscheduled exercise, Frank Alessandro Vesely 2008-08-02T06:10:24 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters/808 Topic: The SPF website Name: nuvola Organization: ny la bella poesia nuvola 2008-07-31T22:17:47 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters/807 Topic: The SPF website Name: Fernando López Santoveña Organization: IATA-CSIC In the message copied below, it is finally suggested to contact the postmaster of the sending domain. Since the message has been apparently missrejected by the receiving domain, I think it would be better to suggest contacting postmaster at hostytec.com instead of iata.csic.es As postmaster at iata.csic.es I have no data about the reasons of hostytec.com to reject our message. -----message read in openspf.org website------------------------- h0036.hostytec.com rejected a message that claimed an envelope sender address of fernando< at >iata.csic.es. h0036.hostytec.com received a message from linneo.iata.csic.es (161.111.212.22) that claimed an envelope sender address of fernando< at >iata.csic.es. The domain iata.csic.es has authorized linneo.iata.csic.es (161.111.212.22) to send mail on its behalf, so the message should have been accepted. It is impossible for us to say why it was rejected. What should I do? If the problem persists, Fernando LópezSantoveña 2008-07-30T10:59:32 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters/803 Topic: The SPF website Name: Peter Coe Organization: PCOE Computer Services pcoecsi.com does have an MX server why does the sample form not detect it? Peter Coe 2008-07-24T00:24:16 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters/796 Currently the "Why" page says SPF Pass mail "should have been accepted". This is a legacy from Meng's original Why implementation and should be changed. I am extremely uncomfortable with any text that suggests mail should be accepted based just on SPF Pass. My suggestion is that we change, " so the message should have been accepted. It is impossible for us to say why it was rejected." to " so the message should not have been rejected due to SPF. It is impossible for us to say why it was rejected." The second item is more of a feature request. I'd like to have the option to support a special Why message for outbound SPF checks, see: http://www.openspf.org/Best_Practices/Outbound The current message doesn't really work for that scenario and I'd like for the rejection comment my policy server sends for such checks provide a more sensible answer. Current why: 88888< at >ez1000.net rejected a message that claimed an envelope sender address of 0627< at >163.com. 88888< at >ez1000.net received a message from Scott Kitterman 2008-06-30T18:23:54 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters/795 Hi, my resubscritption request for SPF help on GMaNe some months ago had no effect so far, I tried it again. For the "contact" page I propose to add a caveat that SPF help inquiries with topic "the Web site" will likely get no answers - I recall about four cases in the last weeks. Frank Frank Ellermann 2008-06-29T03:59:50 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters/794 Topic: The SPF website Name: Elaine Keagle Organization: Montgomery County Schools I navigated to http://www.openspf.org/Tools and from there to your record setup wizard, linked to: http://old.openspf.org/wizard.html. On wizard.html, the SPF website link at the top links back to http://old.openspf.org/index.html. I am trying to share information from your site with people in my organization and the old site links to news from 2004. It appears to them as though you are no longer active. I thought you might want to change that. Thanks! Elaine Keagle 2008-05-29T15:01:09 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters/792 Page: http://www.openspf.org/Best_Practices/Updates Phrase: "If you don't know, as your vendor." Comment: I supose it should be " ask your vendor". Greetings. Fernando. Fernando Lopez Santove~na 2008-05-09T16:10:15 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters/790 Topic: The SPF website Name: Brian Organization: Asylum Entertainment LLC I am in no way an artist but on my website I have 80 x 15 badge images so I have made one for SPF since you did not have one. It would be a great honor to have you use it by adding it to your collection. You may get it here -> http://asylum-et.com/img/badges/spf.png Brian 2008-04-19T17:57:48 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters/789 Hi, where is the source of the "contact form" ? I finally came to the conclusion that it must be broken. It is just not possible that so many users pick a topic "the SPF website" when what they really mean is "Help" or "other" or "the SPF Why page precisely explains what to do, please provide an explanation" (sic!). On the bright side of things, the wizard is not as bad as I thought - but it gets weird if some folks ignore the wizard adding their own silly ideas about "mx:", and then just do not get why that is silly after *two* explanations by mail with URLs of the relevant FAQ entries. Maybe the "contact form" has "to webmaster" as default, and users don't bother to pick "help", I'd like to check this theory. In today's batch was also some real "webmaster" spam offering to improve the page rank of SPF with an < at >gmail address. Do we have a spamcop account for such issues ? I can't use my own account, it's "mailhosted", spamcop knows that I'm not v2.listbox ;-) I'm not tempted to test abuse< at >gmail, I Frank Ellermann 2008-04-19T18:00:34 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters/786 Topic: The SPF website Name: Abdullah Organization: Yesterday, I was able to detect my MX record by the SPF wizard, but today I could not do so. I am sure everything is fine from my side, I have also check my MX record existence trough some outsorcing checking tools. my domain is : kau.edu.sa What do you think? Thanks, Abdullah Abdullah 2008-04-13T12:19:43 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters/784 There is a repeated "the" in the section complained about: "the the forwarder's". I'm not sure a typo like that is really the same thing as bad grammar! Re an earlier point, I sent a subscribe request for this list before ever emailing to it, by clicking on the link on http://www.openspf.org/Forums , i.e. an empty email to subscribe-spf-webmasters< at >v2.listbox.com . No apparent result (no bounce, apparently not subscribed). (I'm reading it by RSS.) Mike Beaton ------ Hi, in part 17 of a series of blog entries the author writes: "Note: OpenSPF needs to clean up their grammar." Is anybody here up to this task ? See: http://blogs.msdn.com/tzink/archive/2007/07/29/sender-authentication-part-17 -hazards-of-senderid-and-spf.aspx Mike Beaton 2008-04-11T12:46:38 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters/783 "Note: OpenSPF needs to clean up their grammar." Is anybody here up to this task ? See: http://blogs.msdn.com/tzink/archive/2007/07/29/sender-authentication-part-17-hazards-of-senderid-and-spf.aspx Frank Frank Ellermann 2008-04-10T22:14:20 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters/781 Now that you've put the revised HELO/EHLO FAQ entry live, the text " (which might be associated with, for example: "example.com")" has a typo. It has the opening bracket omitted, as compared to the text I submitted. Either the opening bracket should be added back, or the closing bracket removed as well. I think, possibly, the whole entry reads better if that text is just cut, as it's a little redundant in context, but that's up to you. Mike Beaton Mike Beaton 2008-04-05T12:31:01 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters/778 Topic: The SPF website Name: Brian Shaw Organization: Asylum Entertainment LLC In the first paragraph just below "What is SPF?" But for it to work, your or your e-mail service provider's should be changed to But for it to work, you or your e-mail service provider's Brian Shaw 2008-04-04T01:27:34 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters/766 Dear SPF Webmasters list, The following is meant as a constructive suggestion, rather than criticism. I think that the section: "Only use "mx" if your MX is used for outgoing mail Sometimes when using configuration aids it is easy to add the mx mechanism. An MX is used for incoming mail, and the same server may or may not be used for outgoing mail. If the IP address of your MX is covered by an a, ip4, or other mechanism, it is not necessary to reference that server again (see "List a server only once," above). Note that specifying mx:mailserver.example.com is generally incorrect, unless you truly mean to include the host that accepts mail for the "mailserver.example.com" domain. This will not show up as a syntax error, however, it will simply not match anything. The correct usage for specifying the MX for "example.com" is mx:example.com, or if you know that server's hostname or IP, a:mailserver.example.com or ip4:x.x.x.x. " is doubly or triple confusing! I have been setting up SPF rules for a local com Mike Beaton 2008-04-03T12:41:08 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.mail.spam.spf.webmasters