RE: Is SPF implementation broken in MailEssential
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Is SPF implementation broken in MailEssential - 22.Oct.2009 9:14:37 AM
|
|
|
morphus
Posts: 14
Joined: 9.Jun.2008
Status: offline
|
So, If I read this correctly, it mean that you agree it's not implemented correctly. Since it says that the mail from is usually the REPLY TO, not always.
ML
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is SPF implementation broken in MailEssential - 22.Oct.2009 9:31:15 AM
|
|
|
RSP
Posts: 1270
Joined: 31.Oct.2006
From: The East Riding of Yorkshire, UK
Status: offline
|
I've just had a search back about the SPF implementation and there's conflicting information.
By the way, it says the mail from is return-path.
I think we need clarification from GFI.
... Just re-read your original headers, and the return-path is seil-frey.de, which doesn't have an SPF record; your bold text mislead me.
< Message edited by RSP -- 22.Oct.2009 9:35:51 AM >
_____________________________
Disclaimer: I don't work for GFI, I just use their products.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is SPF implementation broken in MailEssential - 22.Oct.2009 4:00:17 PM
|
|
|
peters.tom
Posts: 3
Joined: 22.Oct.2009
Status: offline
|
sorry for hijacking this thread, my problem solved as I found a postmaster adress bound to my user account, which was whitelisted.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Printable Version
