[pfx] Re: milter: could it splice (, somehow)?

On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 01:54:01AM +0100, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote: > - sign the entire message as for now, You're confusing the message and the envelope. > - but include a "cramped=1" tag that signals that all receivers > are actually covered by the DKIM signature, so The

[pfx] mailman mangling (Was: Re: milter: could it splice (, somehow)?)

Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in <20230311005401.bynjz%stef...@sdaoden.eu>: ... |>From [.] And i know it is not popular among UNIX people, who like it that way, but this "From_" quoting was introduced by mailman (i presume) when it mangled my quoted-printable to something non-reversible. I do not

[pfx] milter: could it splice (, somehow)?

Hello. Imagine the DKIM standard would be revised and extended a bit (to get rid of DMARC and ARC, even, could it be) to - sign the entire message as for now, - but include a "cramped=1" tag that signals that all receivers are actually covered by the DKIM signature, so - for any "RCPT TO:<>"

[pfx] sender address verification: easy bypass for myhostname/mydomain?

Hello. I see a thread for "double-bounce check applied to itself" from February 2021, but it does not exactly fit this bill (i think): Mar 11 01:10:36 postfix/smtpd[2936]: connect from AWS-OUTLOOK.TOP[85.31.45.162] Mar 11 01:10:37 postfix/smtpd[2936]: Anonymous TLS connection established

[pfx] Re: The joke writes itself.

* Robert A. via Postfix-users Cooper: > Some of us don't have a choice and are stuck with MS mail products due > to work policies. while OWA does now support header filtering, that > has not always been the case. So you are saying that even Microsoft has finally seen the light. Good, it took

[pfx] Re: The joke writes itself.

Some of us don't have a choice and are stuck with MS mail products due to work policies. while OWA does now support header filtering, that has not always been the case. Other may be in similar situations with required clients that don't have all the features you want for a power user. I would

[pfx] Helping OpenDKIM and OpenDMARC

Hey there all, I am one of the people who has maintainer access to OpenDKIM and OpenDMARC. I use both regularly, but I’m also a novice as a C-coder. (Sysadmin, not developer). As mentioned in another thread, I don’t have access to the web hosting stuff or the list management stuff, though

[pfx] Re: The joke writes itself.

* Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users wrote: > * Patrick Ben Koetter via Postfix-users: > > I don't need tags. > Seconded. Do we really need to cater for software that's unable to use > the "List-Id" headers? These are mailing lists for Postfix users and > devs, not for a knitting circle, so I

[pfx] Re: Postfix lists are migrating to a new list server

> On Mar 10, 2023, at 10:59 AM, Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users > wrote: > > * Jim Popovitch via Postfix-users: > >> On Fri, 2023-03-10 at 17:35 +0200, mailmary--- via Postfix-users wrote: >> >>> Looking at the opendkim/opendmarc right now, they appear dead over >>> the past 2 years or so,

[pfx] Re: The joke writes itself.

On 3/10/23 13:54, Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users wrote: * Patrick Ben Koetter via Postfix-users: I don't need tags. Seconded. Do we really need to cater for software that's unable to use the "List-Id" headers? These are mailing lists for Postfix users and devs, not for a knitting circle,

[pfx] Re: [P-U] Re: Postfix lists are migrating to a new list server

Unfortunately, due to company policy, I can only work with RPM packages from either the default repo or EPEL and nothing else. I know several other companies that have the same rule. Its not something that I can change, so I work with what I have. On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:14:14 -0500 PGNet

[pfx] Re: Postfix lists are migrating to a new list server

* Jim Popovitch via Postfix-users: > On Fri, 2023-03-10 at 17:35 +0200, mailmary--- via Postfix-users wrote: > >> Looking at the opendkim/opendmarc right now, they appear dead over >> the past 2 years or so, which is sad really. > > It's not sad at all. It's a testament to the stability of the

[pfx] Re: The joke writes itself.

* Patrick Ben Koetter via Postfix-users: > I don't need tags. Seconded. Do we really need to cater for software that's unable to use the "List-Id" headers? These are mailing lists for Postfix users and devs, not for a knitting circle, so I think it is fair to assume we subscribers all use decent

[pfx] Re: milter-reject: END-OF-MESSAGE

Gerald Galster wrote in : In my postgray thing i have "allow .dhl.de" (surely for a reason). --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)

[pfx] Re: [P-U] Re: The joke writes itself.

Matthias Fechner wrote in : |Am 10.03.2023 um 13:01 schrieb Patrick Ben Koetter via Postfix-users: |> In the old days I used the tags to filter my messages and place them \ |> in the |> right mailbox. With the advent of DMARC I stopped that and turned \ |> to using |> List-Id:-headers as

[pfx] Re: [P-U] Re: Postfix lists are migrating to a new list server

On Fri, 2023-03-10 at 17:35 +0200, mailmary--- via Postfix-users wrote: > > Looking at the opendkim/opendmarc right now, they appear dead over the past 2 > years or so, which is sad really.  > It's not sad at all. It's a testament to the stability of the project. Sure, both projects could use

[pfx] Re: [P-U] Re: Postfix lists are migrating to a new list server

Thanks. As of a few minutes ago there's a dkimpy 1.1.1, although there aren't any changes that will affect you one way or the other if you're using it for dkimpy-milter. thx, Name: dkimpy Version: 1.1.1 Name: dkimpy-milter Version: 1.2.3 the 'hardest' part

[pfx] Re: [P-U] Re: Postfix lists are migrating to a new list server

On 3/10/23 11:13, Curtis Maurand via Postfix-users wrote: On 3/7/23 15:36, Bernardo Reino via Postfix-users wrote: rspamd does DKIM, SPF, DMARC and ARC (and lots more), and doesn't segfault (so far ;-) I've been running rspamd for nearly a year and I've been very happy with it.  It's a huge

[pfx] Re: [P-U] Re: Postfix lists are migrating to a new list server

On 3/8/23 15:30, Scott Techlist via Postfix-users wrote: On Tue, 7 Mar 2023, John Stoffel via Postfix-users wrote: So what's the option for a more upto date version of DKIM milter for debian? rspamd does DKIM, SPF, DMARC and ARC (and lots more), and doesn't segfault (so far ;-) I'm STILL

[pfx] Re: [P-U] Re: Postfix lists are migrating to a new list server

The problem with dkimpy/dkimpy-milter, is that they don't exist in enterprise distros (Alma, Rocky, Oracle) via EPEL. FWIW, it's a trivial install with python/pip, and plays nicely in a venv. works a charm here. rpm spec's also straightforward. here's one for Fedora,

[pfx] Re: [P-U] Re: Postfix lists are migrating to a new list server

On 3/7/23 15:36, Bernardo Reino via Postfix-users wrote: On Tue, 7 Mar 2023, John Stoffel via Postfix-users wrote: So what's the option for a more upto date version of DKIM milter for debian? rspamd does DKIM, SPF, DMARC and ARC (and lots more), and doesn't segfault (so far ;-) I've

[pfx] Re: The joke writes itself.

* Cooper, Robert A via Postfix-users [230310 09:59]: > I posted about the List-ID changing three days ago, but it seems to > have gotten lost in the prefix discussion. for the record, I like > list prefixes. It's easier to filter on subject than on headers that > may or may not be present from

[pfx] Re: milter-reject: END-OF-MESSAGE

> 2023-03-10 11:54:43 #31829(rspamd_proxy) <71bd42>; proxy; > rspamd_task_write_log: id: , qid: <3129536A7A2>, ip: 165.72.200.209, > from: , (default: F (soft reject): [5.31/15.00] > [BAYES_HAM(-2.99){99.97%;},DCC_BULK(2.00){bulk Body=1 Fuz1=4 >

[pfx] Re: [P-U] Re: Postfix lists are migrating to a new list server

The problem with dkimpy/dkimpy-milter, is that they don't exist in enterprise distros (Alma, Rocky, Oracle) via EPEL. The popularity of opendkim/opendmarc is due to their packages being available via EPEL. Looking at the opendkim/opendmarc right now, they appear dead over the past 2 years

[pfx] Re: The joke writes itself.

Hi. On Fri Mar 10, 2023 at 14:57:41 +, Cooper, Robert A via Postfix-users wrote: > I posted about the List-ID changing three days ago, but it seems to have > gotten lost in the prefix discussion. for the record, I like list prefixes. > It's easier to filter on subject than on headers that

[pfx] Re: [P-U] Re: Postfix lists are migrating to a new list server

* Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users : That would be great. I started dkimpy-milter for two reasons: I wanted to experiment with the new DKIM crypto types that lead to RFC 8463 and there didn't seem to be much activity with opendkim maintenance (this is, of course, ironic given how well I did

[pfx] Re: milter-reject: END-OF-MESSAGE

On 2023-03-10 at 05:59:00 UTC-0500 (Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:59:00 +0100) Adrian Huryn via Postfix-users is rumored to have said: Thanks for reply. Logs from rspamd [...] 2023-03-10 11:54:43 #31829(rspamd_proxy) <71bd42>; lua; greylist.lua:348: greylisted until "Fri, 10 Mar 2023 10:59:43 GMT",

[pfx] Re: [P-U] Re: New List Host and Reply-to Header

On Friday, March 10, 2023 7:04:30 AM EST Patrick Ben Koetter via Postfix-users wrote: > * Gerald Galster via Postfix-users : > > > >>> This list uses Mailman configuration settings, not handcrafted code. > > >>> If people believe that it is worthwhile to change the Mailman > > >>> implementation

[pfx] Re: [P-U] Re: Postfix lists are migrating to a new list server

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 1:52:47 AM EST Patrick Ben Koetter via Postfix- users wrote: > * Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users : > > ... > > > > For Debian, if someone can find/test patches, I can get them into Debian's > > package. I assume other distributors are similar. Feel free to update

[pfx] Re: The joke writes itself.

I posted about the List-ID changing three days ago, but it seems to have gotten lost in the prefix discussion. for the record, I like list prefixes. It's easier to filter on subject than on headers that may or may not be present from any particular list. I've found one change to the mailing

[pfx] Re: Sender Caninical Condition

SysAdmin EM via Postfix-users: > Good days, request help, is it possible to use conditions in the > sender_canonical file? we are migrating an entire system and some customers > do not have our SPF added. > > I would like to add a condition for you to rewrite the from when it does > not match a

[pfx] Re: milter_header_checks + WARN length limit

Aleksandr Stankevic: > Hi, > > I understand that there's always a limit - this is expected. > But the unexpected part was that the limit is very different on same-ish > functions. > I think making the limit the same for both scenarios would be best - if > either 60 or 200 ( more preferred :P ).

[pfx] Re: [P-U] Re: New List Host and Reply-to Header

> * Patrick Ben Koetter via Postfix-users : > >> * Gerald Galster via Postfix-users > >: >> I just wrote that because p@rick (sys4 AG) asked on the mailop mailinglist >> 2023-02-17 "Should mailing list messages be DKIM signed? (ARC / DKIM)". >> He was about to

[pfx] Re: The joke writes itself.

* Mal via Postfix-users [230310 03:23]: > > > On 10/03/2023 5:24 pm, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote: > > I was also quite happy with > > no tags at all. > > +1 no tags I wholeheartedly agree. The subject tag hinders, rather than helps, reading list mail. The List-Id provides better

[pfx] Re: Sender Caninical Condition

I’ve created the next rule but I don’t know if it’s works. !if !/^(.*)@(domainclient1.com|domainclient2.com|domainclient3.com)$/ nore...@mydomain.com endif At the moment there are only domains that have our spf, as there are many domains that do not have our spf, I want to create a rule to

[pfx] Sender Caninical Condition

Good days, request help, is it possible to use conditions in the sender_canonical file? we are migrating an entire system and some customers do not have our SPF added. I would like to add a condition for you to rewrite the from when it does not match a condition. Example, If the from is not

[pfx] Re: choose the right email address to send to the lists

On 10/03/2023 19:30, cor...@free.fr wrote: I saw some people using email addresses like yahoo, AOL, mail.ru to post messages to the lists (such as debian-user, postfix-user etc). I am thinking those addresses which have the strictest DKIM setup are not suitable to send a list mail, they will be

[pfx] Re: [P-U] Re: New List Host and Reply-to Header

* Gerald Galster via Postfix-users : > >>> This list uses Mailman configuration settings, not handcrafted code. > >>> If people believe that it is worthwhile to change the Mailman > >>> implementation or the DMARC spec, then I suggest that they work > >>> with the people responsible for that. > >>

[pfx] Re: choose the right email address to send to the lists

Am 10.03.23 um 12:30 schrieb Corey Hickman via Postfix-users: I saw some people using email addresses like yahoo, AOL, mail.ru to post messages to the lists (such as debian-user, postfix-user etc). I am thinking those addresses which have the strictest DKIM setup are not suitable to send a list

[pfx] choose the right email address to send to the lists

I saw some people using email addresses like yahoo, AOL, mail.ru to post messages to the lists (such as debian-user, postfix-user etc). I am thinking those addresses which have the strictest DKIM setup are not suitable to send a list mail, they will be blocked by many recipients (list

[pfx] Re: [P-U] Re: The joke writes itself.

Am 10.03.2023 um 13:01 schrieb Patrick Ben Koetter via Postfix-users: In the old days I used the tags to filter my messages and place them in the right mailbox. With the advent of DMARC I stopped that and turned to using List-Id:-headers as filter trigger. They are invisible, they don't require

[pfx] Re: [P-U] Re: The joke writes itself.

* Phil Biggs via Postfix-users : > Friday, March 10, 2023, 5:54:02 PM, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote: > > > I was also quite happy with no tags at all. In the old days I used the tags to filter my messages and place them in the right mailbox. With the advent of DMARC I stopped that

[pfx] Re: Fwd: milter-reject: END-OF-MESSAGE

Thanks for reply. Logs from rspamd 2023-03-10 11:54:42 #31829(rspamd_proxy) <71bd42>; proxy; proxy_accept_socket: accepted milter connection from /var/run/rspamd/milter.sock port 0 2023-03-10 11:54:43 #31829(rspamd_proxy) <71bd42>; milter; rspamd_milter_process_command: got connection from

[pfx] Re: Fwd: milter-reject: END-OF-MESSAGE

On 10.03.23 11:32, Adrian Huryn via Postfix-users wrote: Mar 10 11:23:56 poczta postfix/smtpd[28240]: input attribute name: (end) Mar 10 11:23:56 poczta postfix/smtpd[28240]: > gateway11d.dhl.com[165.72.200.204]: 354 End data with . Mar 10 11:23:56 poczta postfix/cleanup[28321]: 7F2A2352540:

[pfx] Re: about openSRS for forwarding

On 10.03.23 19:25, pyh--- via Postfix-users wrote: I am running a postfix server for email forwarding. Should I enable openSRS for this forwarding service? if you want to forward mail and also allow users to do that, you apparently should do SRS. Otherwise forwarding destination can reject

[pfx] Re: Fwd: milter-reject: END-OF-MESSAGE

Hello. No i user rspamd and i think dmarc is in there. I set debug for dhl.com and i get this : Mar 10 11:23:56 poczta postfix/smtpd[28240]: input attribute name: (end) Mar 10 11:23:56 poczta postfix/smtpd[28240]: > gateway11d.dhl.com[165.72.200.204]: 354 End data with . Mar 10 11:23:56 poczta

[pfx] about openSRS for forwarding

* { font-size: 13px; font-family: 'MS Pゴシック', sans-serif;}p, ul, ol, blockquote { margin: 0;}a { color: #0064c8; text-decoration: none;}a:hover { color: #0057af; text-decoration: underline;}a:active { color: #004c98;} Hello, I am running a postfix server for email forwarding. Should I

[pfx] Re: Fwd: milter-reject: END-OF-MESSAGE

Hello, Are you using OpenDMARC? if you do, then its because OpenDMARC is broken and crashes on some types of emails. Look above those log lines for the actual crash, it looks like: "can't read SMFIC_BODYEOB reply packet header" unfortunately, OpenDMARC seems like a dead project so don't

[pfx] Fwd: milter-reject: END-OF-MESSAGE

Hello. I have problem from cuple of days. When DHL try to send me an email, we get Mar 10 11:04:06 poczta postfix/cleanup[26141]: EB48B36AABA: milter-reject: END-OF-MESSAGE from gateway11b.dhl.com[165.72.200.202]: 4.7.1 Try again later; from= to= proto=ESMTP helo= And i see i have more this

[pfx] Re: [P-U] Re: The joke writes itself.

Dnia 10.03.2023 o godz. 18:18:50 Phil Biggs via Postfix-users pisze: > > Likewise, To keep my mail client's threaded view sane I resorted to using > header_checks: > > /^Subject: \[pfx\] (.*)$/ REPLACE Subject: $1 What a mail client has problem with threading because of a tag in the subject?

[pfx] Re: [P-U] Re: The joke writes itself.

On 10/03/2023 5:24 pm, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote: > I was also quite happy with > no tags at all. +1 no tags Mal ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to

[pfx] Re: [P-U] Re: New List Host and Reply-to Header

Is it the best idea to add a reply-to header to the author on mailing list emails? The problem I see is many people will hit reply in their email client which will create an email from them to the author, bypassing the mailing list. This has also happened before when someone 'r'eplied to the