search for: llittle

...t: Please do! Reading over it, a simple TXT record for SPF might suffice: v=spf1 +mx ~all My presumption is that Yahoo! spam policy now rates neutral responses as spam and rejects (instead of rating them neutral and delivering to a user's spam/junk mail folder). In my opinion, it's a llittle absurd for Yahoo! to take this approach but I also recognize that times are evolving and it's a reactive security measure to a historically insecure system. -- -Gene

...t, a simple TXT record for SPF might suffice: > > v=spf1 +mx ~all > > My presumption is that Yahoo! spam policy now rates neutral responses > as spam and rejects (instead of rating them neutral and delivering to > a user's spam/junk mail folder). In my opinion, it's a llittle absurd > for Yahoo! to take this approach but I also recognize that times are > evolving and it's a reactive security measure to a historically > insecure system. > The problem isn't one that the mailing list operator can fix "well", and it's mainly based on the...

On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 05:07:04PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote: > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:06:58AM +0200, Ady wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 12:21:32PM -0800, Patrick Masotta wrote: > > > > [ ... Failed to build gnu-efi. ... ] > > > > For some reason I have not received the original email from Patrick > > Masotta in my inbox, so I am using the

...for SPF might suffice: >> >> v=spf1 +mx ~all >> >> My presumption is that Yahoo! spam policy now rates neutral responses >> as spam and rejects (instead of rating them neutral and delivering to >> a user's spam/junk mail folder). In my opinion, it's a llittle absurd >> for Yahoo! to take this approach but I also recognize that times are >> evolving and it's a reactive security measure to a historically >> insecure system. >> > > The problem isn't one that the mailing list operator can fix "well", and >...