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 1Ghtrg-00048p-B5 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:17:40 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id kA8KGBjw010814; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:16:11 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 kA8KDek9008572 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:13:41 GMT Received: from snowdrop.home (unknown [62.6.163.66]) by outmail.freedom2surf.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A669E5CA2A for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:13:40 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:13:37 +0000 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November Message-ID: <20061108201337.1277812e@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <20061108200152.GA4007@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> <20061108175413.7a76fd3c@snowdrop.home> <20061108200152.GA4007@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_WbNgh=qkP.ltQjLwNZ6U_C/"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: ae8565db-50e0-4f84-a48d-f4b2339d943c X-Archives-Hash: 926519fa431b76201000fb3124ad476f --Sig_WbNgh=qkP.ltQjLwNZ6U_C/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:01:52 +0000 Kurt Lieber wrote: | On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 05:54:13PM +0000 or thereabouts, Ciaran | McCreesh wrote: | > 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, you obviously do not understand the issue, nor do you know | what you're talking about. No, I do, you're just missing the point. | The impact is that some users happen to send mail in a way that ends | up looking very similar to a spammer sending an email with a forged | return-path. And, because of the way SA has chosen to interpret this, | those valid, non-spam emails get assigned a positive spam value, even | when the mail administrator has asked them not to. And why do you think it does that? --=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_WbNgh=qkP.ltQjLwNZ6U_C/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFUjpz96zL6DUtXhERAspyAJ9wtgEPuQVsBF5AwheQAa7g0wk5gACg33xM ozKlHMfvznF3bmmqfVbbtew= =p1tf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_WbNgh=qkP.ltQjLwNZ6U_C/-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list