hey,
first, let me thank you for your answer. i really appreciate this!
On Monday, February 24, 2020 12:20:27 AM CET, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
smtpd_tls_security_level = may
smtpd_tls_lloglevel = 1
That's fine, but not consistent with the verbose logging below, did you
temporarily set a
On February 24, 2020 4:30:37 AM UTC, Mohamed Lrhazi wrote:
>Thanks all,
>
>My question still was: Suppose I comply with all the recommendations
>and
>best practices in composing my SPF records... Do I still need to worry
>about the number of IP addresses (v4/v6/ciders) that I put in each
Thanks all,
My question still was: Suppose I comply with all the recommendations and
best practices in composing my SPF records... Do I still need to worry
about the number of IP addresses (v4/v6/ciders) that I put in each record?
I guess if I could really stick with sub 512 bytes records, I
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 06:44:34PM -0500, Mohamed Lrhazi wrote:
> record flattening is the process of replacing include, and other lookup
> generating mechanisms, with their resulting ip addresses.
> My question is how many IPs can one put in a single spf record?
>
> It appears the RFC does not
On 2/23/2020 7:08 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> The limits are a function of DNS, not SPF, which is why RFC 7208 Section 3.4.
> was written.
I would there is also a somewhat arbitrary limit that was picked that
doesn't t match the real world. See
On Sunday, February 23, 2020 6:44:34 PM EST Mohamed Lrhazi wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 3:23 PM Benny
>
> > https://dmarcian.com/spf-survey/?domain=spf.255.cuaemail.org
> >
> > see Record flattening
>
> record flattening is the process of replacing include, and other lookup
> generating
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 3:23 PM Benny
>
> https://dmarcian.com/spf-survey/?domain=spf.255.cuaemail.org
>
> see Record flattening
record flattening is the process of replacing include, and other lookup
generating mechanisms, with their resulting ip addresses.
My question is how many IPs can one
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 10:45:14PM +0100, Michael wrote:
> After upgrading from debian stretch (providing postfix 3.1.14) to
> buster (providing postfix 3.4.8), I just found out that no incoming
> mail was received any longer. Digging a little deeper showed me that
> turning of tls resolved this
hey,
after upgrading from debian stretch (providing postfix 3.1.14) to buster
(providing postfix 3.4.8), i just found out that no incoming mail was
received any longer. digging a little deeper showed me that turning of tls
resolved this issue. but then again, there was no tls...
i would
On Sunday, February 23, 2020 3:26:07 PM EST Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Scott Kitterman skrev den 2020-02-23 21:03:
> > There is no hard limit. See RFC 7208 Section 3.4.
>
> sadly :(
>
> even ip4:0.0.0.0/0 is valid
>
> could pypolicyd-spf break rfc so only domains under 255 ipv4 is valid
> results
Scott Kitterman skrev den 2020-02-23 21:03:
There is no hard limit. See RFC 7208 Section 3.4.
sadly :(
even ip4:0.0.0.0/0 is valid
could pypolicyd-spf break rfc so only domains under 255 ipv4 is valid
results ?, imho its insane that its supported unlimited
Mohamed Lrhazi skrev den 2020-02-23 20:53:
Using addr...@spf.101.cuaemail.org, gmail also passes. The SPF for
this domain has 101 addresses.
https://dmarcian.com/spf-survey/?domain=spf.255.cuaemail.org
see Record flattening
On Sunday, February 23, 2020 2:53:28 PM EST Mohamed Lrhazi wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Sorry for a non-postfix specific question.
>
> I am running into an issue with a big SPF record I had been maintaining. I
> went ahead a broke it up using the include: mechanism, but am still trying
> to figure
Hello all,
Sorry for a non-postfix specific question.
I am running into an issue with a big SPF record I had been maintaining. I
went ahead a broke it up using the include: mechanism, but am still trying
to figure out the limit I did hit.
For testing purposes, I send emails from this
14 matches
Mail list logo
