Florian Weimer:
> * Wietse Venema:
>
> > Florian Weimer:
> >> * Wietse Venema:
> >>
> >> > Florian Weimer:
> >> >> * Wietse Venema:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Florian Weimer:
> >> >> >> * Rich Felker:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > A solution that would work with existing and future versions of
> >> >> >> >
* Wietse Venema:
> Florian Weimer:
>> * Wietse Venema:
>>
>> > Florian Weimer:
>> >> * Wietse Venema:
>> >>
>> >> > Florian Weimer:
>> >> >> * Rich Felker:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > A solution that would work with existing and future versions of musl
>> >> >> > as well as glibc, and would (I think)
Florian Weimer:
> * Wietse Venema:
>
> > Florian Weimer:
> >> * Wietse Venema:
> >>
> >> > Florian Weimer:
> >> >> * Rich Felker:
> >> >>
> >> >> > A solution that would work with existing and future versions of musl
> >> >> > as well as glibc, and would (I think) avoid the need to poke at _res
* Wietse Venema:
> Florian Weimer:
>> * Wietse Venema:
>>
>> > Florian Weimer:
>> >> * Rich Felker:
>> >>
>> >> > A solution that would work with existing and future versions of musl
>> >> > as well as glibc, and would (I think) avoid the need to poke at _res
>> >> > to set the glibc trustad
Florian Weimer:
> * Wietse Venema:
>
> > Florian Weimer:
> >> * Rich Felker:
> >>
> >> > A solution that would work with existing and future versions of musl
> >> > as well as glibc, and would (I think) avoid the need to poke at _res
> >> > to set the glibc trustad flag, would be replacing the
* Wietse Venema:
> Florian Weimer:
>> * Rich Felker:
>>
>> > A solution that would work with existing and future versions of musl
>> > as well as glibc, and would (I think) avoid the need to poke at _res
>> > to set the glibc trustad flag, would be replacing the call to
>> > res_query with
On 28 Apr 2020, at 4:42, Philip wrote:
Hello
I sent a message from mail.ru, who has p=reject setting in their DMARC
record, to an email account at OVH.
OVH forwards this email to gmail, as we know during the forwarding OVH
doesn't implement SRS. So after receiving the email, gmail shows
Florian Weimer:
> * Rich Felker:
>
> > A solution that would work with existing and future versions of musl
> > as well as glibc, and would (I think) avoid the need to poke at _res
> > to set the glibc trustad flag, would be replacing the call to
> > res_query with res_mkquery, |='ing the AD bit
> Scott, I have another question.
Gents, I love geeking about email and spam techniques but these are not
postfix related nor do they relate to beer*. IMO these should be
discussed elsewhere.
Regards,
KAM
* There are some mailing lists with exclusions that discussions on beer
are always
On 2020-04-28 14:17, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
however, SPF will not fail here. So, sender using DKIM and forwarder
using
SRS fill make both SPF and DMARC pass.
spf domain changes on next-hop, so its another domains spf that deside
if spf pass or not pass, might be why postfix maillist
On Tuesday, April 28, 2020 8:17:54 AM EDT Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >>Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >>> Yes. If either passes and the relevant identifier is aligned, DMARC
> >>> passes.
> >
> >On April 28, 2020 9:29:59 AM UTC, Philip wrote:
> >>Scott, I have another question.
> >>Given the case
Scott Kitterman wrote:
Yes. If either passes and the relevant identifier is aligned, DMARC
passes.
On April 28, 2020 9:29:59 AM UTC, Philip wrote:
Scott, I have another question.
Given the case there is no DKIM signed in original message, when
forwarding MTA implement a SRS in the outgoing
On 28.04.20 10:15, natan maciej milaszewski wrote:
I have debian 9 and postfix 3.1.14. Generally, I have distributed mail
traffic over several machines
#other go to amavis
0.0.0.0/0 FILTER smtp-amavis:[127.0.0.1]:10628
master.cf:
smtp-amavis unix - - - - 80
Hi
In that configurations cannot work delimiter
in main.cf exists
recipient_delimiter = +
On 28.04.2020 10:15, natan maciej milaszewski wrote:
> Hi
> I have debian 9 and postfix 3.1.14. Generally, I have distributed mail
> traffic over several machines
>
> - separately for sent mail - here I
On April 28, 2020 9:29:59 AM UTC, Philip wrote:
>Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Yes. If either passes and the relevant identifier is aligned, DMARC
>passes.
>
>Scott, I have another question.
>Given the case there is no DKIM signed in original message, when
>forwarding MTA implement a SRS in the
On April 28, 2020 9:20:01 AM UTC, Philip wrote:
>Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> I predict you won't find this a satisfying answer, but the rest of
>RFC 7489.
>>
>> Instead of quoting bits of various web sites and how-to's back and
>forth, l think it makes sense to read the actual specification if
On April 28, 2020 8:58:28 AM UTC, Philip wrote:
>Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> My question is, since SPF got SOFTFAIL by gmail, why it still says
>>> DMARC
>>> PASS? Shouldn't SPF failed cause DMARC failure?
>> No. See RFC 7489, Section 4.2, last paragraph.
>
>what's the background knowledge?
>
On April 28, 2020 8:42:20 AM UTC, Philip wrote:
>Hello
>
>I sent a message from mail.ru, who has p=reject setting in their DMARC
>record, to an email account at OVH.
>
>OVH forwards this email to gmail, as we know during the forwarding OVH
>doesn't implement SRS. So after receiving the
* pgndev:
> https://dmarc.org/2017/03/can-i-use-dmarc-if-i-have-only-deployed-spf/
>
> "...
> you can use DMARC with only SPF – and absolutely should, at least as far as
> enabling reporting –
> ..."
Tut, tut... Partial quotes, out of context. How desperate some of you
have become. The relevant
Hi
I have debian 9 and postfix 3.1.14. Generally, I have distributed mail
traffic over several machines
- separately for sent mail - here I have postfix
- separately for incoming e-mails - here I have postfix + external amavis
The general outline is this:
1) mail arrives at postfix
2) postfix
* Rich Felker:
> A solution that would work with existing and future versions of musl
> as well as glibc, and would (I think) avoid the need to poke at _res
> to set the glibc trustad flag, would be replacing the call to
> res_query with res_mkquery, |='ing the AD bit into place, then
> res_send.
21 matches
Mail list logo
