Re: SPF problems too
Russell Coker <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.australia |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 06:36:08 PM David Bell wrote: > Because I'm finally making an attempt to catch up on email I thought I'd > share my perspective as a moderator/admin of the mailing lists for LCA2016 > (and lca-announce) as well as a user of mailhost for normal email. > > Following this thread the admin team disabled greylisting and SPF on > mailhost which affects mail flow into LA's mailing lists (including LCA) > and the various inboxes used by Council, the Admin Team, and the LCA team > (among others). Whilst mail was delivered slightly quicker, the quantity of > spam also increased notably. Wouldn't it make more sense to have greylisting running on the addresses that aren't for subscriber-only lists? When a list only allows subscribers to post it won't benefit from greylisting. Regarding SPF, what needed to be done is to have the address published for the council not point to a system that forwarded mail without SRS to a server that enforces SPF checks. > Based on these experiences (which I'd expect the other mailman > moderators/admins, mailhost users would echo) I'd recommend the Admin Team > enable greylisting and SPF once again. If configured well (as I believe it > was previously) most users should barely notice a delay as repeat senders > do not get greylisted again within certain time frames. There was never any serious complaint about greylisting. Complaints about it came as a side effect of the list queuing issue that was delaying mail, greylisting got blamed for what was mostly not related to it. SPF was never configured well. When a server receives mail from a basic forwarding system that doesn't do SRS it has to be configured to whitelist that server. The fact that I can now send mail to the advertised address for the council without it bouncing is an improvement. But it would be better if SPF was configured correctly. We currently have a problem of needless spam with James Purser's address in the From: field which can be simply fixed by enforcing SPF. While that spam is a small portion of the spam that everyone here receives it's something that can be simply solved. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/