14 Jul
2012
14 Jul
'12
3:20 p.m.
On 14/07/12 15:21, Andy Bennett wrote:
Hi,
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
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.