From wiggly@??? Sat Jul 14 15:20:19 2012
Received: from [2001:ba8:1f1:f03f:216:4eff:fe05:ae0f] (helo=otter.wiggly.org)
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <wiggly@???>) id 1Sq48p-000156-HT
for users@???; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:20:19 +0000
Received: from 78-105-5-64.zone3.bethere.co.uk ([78.105.5.64]:56065)
by otter.wiggly.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <wiggly@???>)
id 1Sq48o-0004Vy-TK; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 16:20:18 +0100
Message-ID: <50018E31.1080901@???>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 16:20:17 +0100
From: Nigel Rantor <wiggly@???>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andy Bennett <andyjpb@???>
References: <50017F1C.7050609@???> <50018056.7060702@???>
In-Reply-To: <50018056.7060702@???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam_score: -1.0
X-Spam_score_int: -9
X-Spam_bar: -
X-bitfolk.com-Metrics-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for
2001:ba8:1f1:f03f:216:4eff:fe05:ae0f (failed)
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Sat,
14 Jul 2012 15:20:19 +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
spamd3.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)
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 15:20:19 -0000
On 14/07/12 15:21, Andy Bennett wrote:
> 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 considered adding SPF checks to the
>> Bitfolk SA?
>
> The Bitfolk Spam Assassin already scores for SPF.
>
> I occasionally see
