From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ghrgh-0007zb-EM for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:58:11 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id kA8HvD7c012971; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:57:13 GMT Received: from outmail.freedom2surf.net (outmail1.freedom2surf.net [194.106.33.237]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kA8HsscS020967 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:54:54 GMT Received: from snowdrop.home (unknown [62.6.163.66]) by outmail.freedom2surf.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3876E56F31 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:54:22 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:54:13 +0000 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November Message-ID: <20061108175413.7a76fd3c@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <20061108172955.GY4007@mail.lieber.org> References: <20061101134037.6F126649AC@smtp.gentoo.org> <200611061720.50442.vapier@gentoo.org> <20061106223839.GA6332@gentoo.org> <200611061748.34810.vapier@gentoo.org> <45502DEB.20404@gentoo.org> <20061107162459.j8akeyhf0gwg88os@horde.gg3.net> <20061108172955.GY4007@mail.lieber.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.5.6 (GTK+ 2.10.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Sig_wUU.a1Do90H30lDf1KxLdXR; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: af2440c0-be01-452d-a85e-50b5936df7bd X-Archives-Hash: 8f13b77582872d29f39c7ac8607bd0bf --Sig_wUU.a1Do90H30lDf1KxLdXR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:29:55 +0000 Kurt Lieber wrote: | I'm not trying to pick on Georgi, but can we please be realistic | about the true impact of this? So far, we've identified one | application (SpamAssassin) that incorrectly interprets a neutral SPF | record. As a result, it adds 1.1 to the overall SA score. We've identified one very widely used application that interprets SPF records based upon how they're used by spammers rather than by how the specification says they should be interpreted. In this case, SA is entirely reasonable in its behaviour -- SPF makes the classic incorrect assumption that spammers won't abuse the system. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=3D13 --Sig_wUU.a1Do90H30lDf1KxLdXR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFUhnN96zL6DUtXhERAuHXAJ9O4w1ieIN+3ChIiGjUoGNhTEJUqwCgmAC2 y9UVycjIYNBDw2rZw0grzK8= =2mHa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_wUU.a1Do90H30lDf1KxLdXR-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list