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 "SPF_PASS" in X-Spam-Status and
>
> "* -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record" in X-Spam-Report.
Ah, yes, I was looking at emails that had gotten through to me that were
clearly spam, they must have been ones that did not get scored because
of SA being unavailable to exim at the time.
I see Received-SPF on some my mail.
I also see X-Spam_score, X-Spam_score_int and X-Spam_bar on, I think,
all of my mail.
I rarely see X-Spam-Status at all.
It would be good to know which headers BF SA is configured to clear and
set so I know which ones I can rely on if SA has run over a message. I
will probably look at clearing any headers I may inspect in exim before
sending it through to SA just in case though.
Thanks,
n
From phil.stewart@??? Sat Jul 14 18:31:46 2012
Received: from [2001:ba8:1f1:f00a::2] (helo=maltose.turbinado.co.uk)
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <phil.stewart@???>)
id 1Sq786-00073g-LA
for users@???; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 18:31:46 +0000
Received: from cpc19-acto1-2-0-cust224.4-2.cable.virginmedia.com
([86.4.130.225] helo=[192.168.23.84])
by maltose.turbinado.co.uk with esmtpsa
(TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <phil.stewart@???>) id 1Sq785-0004tK-1M
for users@???; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 18:31:45 +0000
Message-ID: <5001BB0D.6030804@???>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:31:41 +0100
From: Phil Stewart <phil.stewart@???>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: users@???
References: <50017F1C.7050609@???>
In-Reply-To: <50017F1C.7050609@???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-bitfolk.com-Metrics-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for
2001:ba8:1f1:f00a::2 (failed)
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Sat,
14 Jul 2012 18:31:46 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:ba8:1f1:f00a::2
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: phil.stewart@???
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)
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/
