On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 10:17:52PM +0200, Markus Ueberall wrote:
> On 18.10.23, 22:11 Markus Ueberall wrote via Postfix-users:
> > I just tried an explicit "_25._tcp" CNAME as suggested above (using the
> > shared RRset) /alongside/ the existing "*._tcp" CNAME which I did not
> > want to
On 18.10.23, 22:11 Markus Ueberall wrote via Postfix-users:
I just tried an explicit "_25._tcp" CNAME as suggested above (using
the shared RRset) /alongside/ the existing "*._tcp" CNAME which I did
not want to remove/replace for one domain ("D1") while keeping my
aforementioned setup for a
On 17.10.23, 18:42 Viktor Dukhovni wrote via Postfix-users:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 05:47:11PM +0200, Markus Ueberall via Postfix-users
wrote:
For the record: I stumbled across this a couple of days ago when I received
a message on LinkedIn telling me that a number of e-mails sent via
Dnia 18.10.2023 o godz. 19:31:52 Joachim Lindenberg via Postfix-users pisze:
> Thunderbird "advertises" end-to-end-encryption only and confuses users
> that actually use/benefit from SMTP-DANE where it tells "unencrypted".
IMHO correctly. Email that isn't end-to-end encrypted *is* actually
Joachim Lindenberg via Postfix-users:
> Thanks Wietse,
>
> I agree that end-to-end use cases are difficult.
I have nothing to add here.
Wietse
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
Thanks Wietse,
I agree that end-to-end use cases are difficult.
At the moment users usually get neither any feedback on security aspects of
messages they send nor can they request specific security properties.
Thunderbird "advertises" end-to-end-encryption only and confuses users that
October 2, 2023 1:42 PM, "Wietse Venema via Postfix-users"
wrote:
> patpro--- via Postfix-users:
>> OK, this is where I was wrong. I thought postscreen would cache
>> the result of the DNS queries for at least postscreen_dnsbl_min_ttl.
>> Most dnsbl have a crazy short TTL, I was hopping to get
