by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Sat,
14 Jul 2012 14:15:57 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:ba8:1f1:f03f:216:4eff:fe05:ae0f
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: wiggly@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd0.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,SHORTCIRCUIT
shortcircuit=ham autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 SHORTCIRCUIT Not all rules were run,
due to a shortcircuited rule
* -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Subject: [bitfolk] Bitfolk SpamAssassin / SPF
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:15:57 -0000
So, I receive mail that would be killed by SPF checks and I'm thinking
of getting my exim server to use SPF because of this.
So, to the VPS users, I was wondering if anyone who has implemented SPF
checks found downsides to it?
And to the Bitfolk admins, have you considered adding SPF checks to the
Bitfolk SA?
n
From andyjpb@??? Sat Jul 14 14:21:12 2012
Received: from pavilion.ashurst.eu.org ([85.119.82.45])
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <andyjpb@???>)
id 1Sq3Dc-0007Qr-2D
for users@???; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:21:12 +0000
Received: from [87.114.56.117] (helo=[192.168.1.146])
by pavilion.ashurst.eu.org with esmtpsa
(TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <andyjpb@???>)
id 1Sq3Db-0005TS-Be; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:21:11 +0100
Message-ID: <50018056.7060702@???>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:21:10 +0100
From: Andy Bennett <andyjpb@???>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:10.0.4) Gecko/20120510 Icedove/10.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nigel Rantor <wiggly@???>
References: <50017F1C.7050609@???>
In-Reply-To: <50017F1C.7050609@???>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd1.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,SHORTCIRCUIT
shortcircuit=ham autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 SHORTCIRCUIT Not all rules were run,
due to a shortcircuited rule
* -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Sat,
14 Jul 2012 14:21:12 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 85.119.82.45
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: andyjpb@???
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on mail.bitfolk.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: users@???
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] Bitfolk SpamAssassin / SPF
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:21:12 -0000
Hi,
> So, I receive mail that would be killed by SPF checks and I'm thinking
> of getting my exim server to use SPF because of this.
>
> So, to the VPS users, I was wondering if anyone who has implemented SPF
> checks found downsides to it?
>
> And to the Bitfolk admins, have you conside
