Referring to test spam email from .com you're totally right (they have now published a 2nd TXT record it was not present before, when I tested), the bold one has the ip4 statement with a typo (or intentional, don't know). ![]() You might like to ask on a spamassassin form about the problem with duplicate SPF records. FWIW, in my rspamd system the headers that you've provided do show that as spam. Phoenix wrote:That domain does have an SPF record but the problem is that it has two SPF records and one of them is invalid, I'm not an expert but I'd guess that might be part of the problem. I've done an nslookup for TXT records in .com and those funny people has a SPF record setup, so it is ok to accept this and score, but no score at all is here in the header! I'd like to have a SPF_PASS here, and maybe a DMARC tag too New York, NY 10150Īs you can see, this is pretty spam. You'll be able to put what we teach into practice right away - and see some AMAZING results Our step-by-step video lessons will teach you simple, MIND-BLOWING tricks to make your girlfriend or wife squirt like NEVER before (or for the first time!). Prepare to enter the realm of bliss-based alternative sex education. Learn The SECRET Techniques Most Men Will NEVER Know About Squirting Tonight. Subject: Learn The SECRET Techniques Most Men Will never Know! Received: from .com (unknown )īy (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2E2F820749 ![]() Received: from ()īy localhost (mail.example ) (amavisd-new, port 10024) T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.1, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.1] autolearn=disabled Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain )īy (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB265820756
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |