Some receiving systems may use a different search algorithm. See, for
example (expired draft):
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-levine-dmarcwalk-00.html
Thanks Viktor. I will check the doc you mentioned.
___
Postfix-users mailing
Because - as you have found - Google will anyway apply the DMARC record for
the parent domain eu.org, over which you have no control, I think it is
still better to have the own one.
I just enabled DMARC on cloudflare where I hosted the domain.
_dmarc.stackops.eu.org. 300 IN TXT "v=D
Dnia 3.06.2024 o godz. 06:26:53 Jeff P via Postfix-users pisze:
>
> I would like to set a seperated DMARC for xxx.eu.org.
> But I have no control over the sender smtp server, so dkim is not
> possible to be added.
> do you think if it's still right to add a dmarc?
If DKIM i
I would like to set a seperated DMARC for xxx.eu.org.
But I have no control over the sender smtp server, so dkim is not
possible to be added.
do you think if it's still right to add a dmarc?
Thanks.
Use DMARC for your own domain to clearly signal that your xxx.eu.org domain
and the parent
On June 2, 2024 3:05:58 PM UTC, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users
wrote:
>Dnia 2.06.2024 o godz. 07:19:38 Jeff P via Postfix-users pisze:
>>
>> I am using a subdomain xxx.eu.org for sending email.
>> Though I have not set a dmarc for xxx.eu.org, but gmail says DMARC
Dnia 2.06.2024 o godz. 07:19:38 Jeff P via Postfix-users pisze:
>
> I am using a subdomain xxx.eu.org for sending email.
> Though I have not set a dmarc for xxx.eu.org, but gmail says DMARC pass.
> So i checked that eu.org does have a DMARC record:
>
> _dmarc.eu.org.
On Sun, Jun 02, 2024 at 07:19:38AM +0800, Jeff P via Postfix-users wrote:
> I am using a subdomain xxx.eu.org for sending email.
> Though I have not set a dmarc for xxx.eu.org, but gmail says DMARC pass.
> So i checked that eu.org does have a DMARC record:
>
> _dmarc.eu.org.
Hello
I am using a subdomain xxx.eu.org for sending email.
Though I have not set a dmarc for xxx.eu.org, but gmail says DMARC pass.
So i checked that eu.org does have a DMARC record:
_dmarc.eu.org. 7200 IN TXT
"v=DMARC1;p=none;sp=none;pct=10;rua=mailto:dmarc-mas...@eu.org;ruf=mailto:dmar
On 2024-05-30 at 02:23:45 UTC-0400 (Thu, 30 May 2024 08:23:45 +0200)
Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
AFAIK mailman2 does this as hardcoded behaviour, if the sender's
domain has DMARC policy different than "none".
No, it is configurable. Mailman v
Hello the list,
I saw some open source providers who have these dmarc settings:
_dmarc.disroot.org. 3495 IN TXT "v=DMARC1; p=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s;
rua=mailto:ab...@disroot.org; ruf=mailto:ab...@disroot.org;;
_dmarc.autistici.org. 3504 IN TXT "v=DMARC1; p=reject; adkim=s; as
e is:
>
> 555 5.5.4 Unsupported option: XATTRDIRECT=Originating
There is no need for Postfix workarounds, they have rolled out a fix.
https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/exchange/microsoft-dmarc-aggregate-report-smtp-issues/m-p/4072531
Wietse
>/etc/postfix/main.cf:
&g
Alan Munday via Postfix-users:
> As of the 22 Feb 2024 I have been seeing invalid MAIL FROM address from
> Microsoft:
>
> In: MAIL FROM: XATTRDIRECT=Originating
> XATTRORGID=xorgid:96f9e21d-a1c4-44a3-99e4-37191ac61848
>
> Clearly an issue with line termination, but one I have yet to find
As of the 22 Feb 2024 I have been seeing invalid MAIL FROM address from
Microsoft:
In: MAIL FROM: XATTRDIRECT=Originating
XATTRORGID=xorgid:96f9e21d-a1c4-44a3-99e4-37191ac61848
Clearly an issue with line termination, but one I have yet to find
reported online.
I have seen a couple
Hi
The OP has /var/tmp/opendmarc.dat which will hold the details of why the
email was treated the way it was.
Paul
On 09/02/2024 15:15, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote:
On 09.02.24 14:58, natan via Postfix-users wrote:
Feb 2 09:02:45 mail134 opendkim[27903]: 888B43B0063:
On 09.02.24 14:58, natan via Postfix-users wrote:
Feb 2 09:02:45 mail134 opendkim[27903]: 888B43B0063:
smtpfarm4.allegro.pl [91.207.xxx.xxx] not internal
Feb 2 09:02:45 mail134 opendkim[27903]: 888B43B0063: not authenticated
Feb 2 09:02:45 mail134 opendkim[27903]: 888B43B0063: DKIM
W dniu 9.02.2024 o 15:13, Juri Haberland via Postfix-users pisze:
On 09.02.24 14:58, natan via Postfix-users wrote:
Hi
I have setup postfix+SPF+DKIM+DMARK and im confused
Sometimes I get in logs fail like:
Feb 2 09:02:46 mail134 opendmarc[29379]: AE3D53B0062: allegromail.pl fail
Feb 2
On 09.02.24 14:58, natan via Postfix-users wrote:
> Hi
> I have setup postfix+SPF+DKIM+DMARK and im confused
>
> Sometimes I get in logs fail like:
> Feb 2 09:02:46 mail134 opendmarc[29379]: AE3D53B0062: allegromail.pl fail
> Feb 2 09:02:45 mail134 opendmarc[29379]: 888B43B0063 ignoring
>
=<@allegromail.pl>, size=3733, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Why I get example domain like allegromail.pl fail ?
SPF is correct
DKIM verification successful
DMARC host -t txt _dmarc.allegromail.pl
_dmarc.allegromail.pl descriptive text "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=r;
aspf=r; rf=afrf;"
Dino Edwards via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-11-15 10:42:
That's what Dino is trying to do. Make amavis-over-milter add an DKIM
AR-header, then make OpenDMARC evaluate DMARC using that header. It
may be true that SpamAssassin 4 has a DMARC test, but Amavis >does not
use such test
So as per your previous post, setting a policy such as this one would
do the trick?
...
This would be necessary to keep DMARC AR headers after they passed the
content_filter Amavis. It is not necessary for OpenDMARC to do its work.
It was not clear what "skipping OpenDMARC" mea
>Conceptually you can. I tested it yesterday and it worked. At first I
>encountered said phenomenon that the >mails in my inbox had no DMARC AR
>header, but that was because the content_filter Amavis removed them. >After
>disabling DKIM verification on the content_filter, h
can. I tested it yesterday and it worked. At first I
encountered said phenomenon that the mails in my inbox had no DMARC AR
header, but that was because the content_filter Amavis removed them.
After disabling DKIM verification on the content_filter, headers looked
like this:
Authentication
>That's what Dino is trying to do. Make amavis-over-milter add an DKIM
>AR-header, then make OpenDMARC evaluate DMARC using that header. It may be
>true that SpamAssassin 4 has a DMARC test, but Amavis >does not use such test
>hit for a policy enforcement.
>Amavis has
currect, but amavisd support rspamd with have dmarc
what?
Amavis has support for rspamd as a spam_scanner, i.e. for scoring, not
for DMARC policy enforcement.
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email
den 2023-11-14 19:44:
it's the same as https://github.com/prehor/amavisd-milter just an
older version.
but it does not support dmarc.
On 14.11.23 21:55, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
currect, but amavisd support rspamd with have dmarc
what?
and spamasassassin 4 have dmarc
you have.
if you can configure opendmarc with postfix why is amavisd milter a problem ?
That's what Dino is trying to do. Make amavis-over-milter add an DKIM AR-header, then make OpenDMARC evaluate DMARC using that
header. It may be true that SpamAssassin 4 has a DMARC test, but Amavis does not
all milters you have
it's the same as https://github.com/prehor/amavisd-milter just an older
version.
but it does not support dmarc.
currect, but amavisd support rspamd with have dmarc
and spamasassassin 4 have dmarc, but this needs stable 4.x releases :/
i have only amavvisd-milter
Damian via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-11-14 19:28:
https://amavisd-milter.sourceforge.net/
just use that, it replace all milters you have
This is a confusing statement.
in what way ?, if you can configure opendmarc with postfix why is
amavisd milter a problem ?
amavisd only miss
/amavisd-milter just an older
version.
but it does not support dmarc.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
- Have you got anything
https://amavisd-milter.sourceforge.net/
just use that, it replace all milters you have
This is a confusing statement.
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
Dino Edwards via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-11-14 13:43:
I would appreciate some assistance.
https://amavisd-milter.sourceforge.net/
just use that, it replace all milters you have
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To
this does not make sense unless you use it somewhere.
Can you elaborate?
yes, the configuration variable you showed is not used by anything, unless
you refer to it elsewhere in postfix configuration.
what do logs say?
On 14.11.23 11:16, Dino Edwards via Postfix-users wrote:
Logs don't
it happens to me sometimes, I make changes to the postfix configuration and I
forget to restart postfix for it to take effect (systemctl restart postfix
opendkim opendmarc etc).
Could it be that simple?
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 11:16:18 -0500 Dino Edwards via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Logs
By “getting skipped” I mean I have no logs of opendmarc doing anything.
Do you have logs of opendmarc doing anything if you remove Amavis from
smtpd_milters?
I don’t understand how I would disable dkim in my content_filter
policy. Dkim verification is either enabled or disabled in Amavis
-Original Message-
From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 8:04 AM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: [pfx] Re: Postfix, Amavis DKIM and DMARC
>this does not make sense unless you use it somewhere.
Can you elaborate?
>what do lo
: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 9:13 AM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: [pfx] Re: Postfix, Amavis DKIM and DMARC
I tried this config but sadly it doesn’t work, OpenDMARC (127.0.0.1:54321) gets
skipped completely
If "getting skipped" means that you don't see Authentication-Results
I tried this config but sadly it doesn’t work, OpenDMARC
(127.0.0.1:54321) gets skipped completely
If "getting skipped" means that you don't see Authentication-Results for
DMARC, I have a feeling that you didn't disable DKIM verification on
your content_filter Interface Poli
On 14.11.23 07:43, Dino Edwards via Postfix-users wrote:
I have been using OpenDKIM and OpenDMARC as smtpd_milters in Postfix and
Amavis as a content filter. I'm trying to replace OpenDKIM with Amavis for
DKIM verify and signing. The problem is that since Amavis is setup as an
after-queue
Hello,
I have been using OpenDKIM and OpenDMARC as smtpd_milters in Postfix and
Amavis as a content filter. I'm trying to replace OpenDKIM with Amavis for
DKIM verify and signing. The problem is that since Amavis is setup as an
after-queue content_filter and OpenDMARC is a pre-queue
.
>
> We've recieved an email which was classified as spamm by it's sender IP
> address by RBL list.
>
> Additionally sender address didn't pass DMARC verification and had RUF email
> in it's DNS record.
>
> Our mail system based on DMARC DNS record send a DMARC report to
On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 02:36:33PM +0100, Szymon Malinowski via Postfix-users
wrote:
> You see the point? We got stuck in a loop of sending DMARC reports which are
> beeing bounced because of unknown user.
> Is there any way to prevent such situations?
Don't send failure reports, ever.
Szymon Malinowski via Postfix-users:
> You see the point? We got stuck in a loop of sending DMARC reports which are
> beeing bounced because of unknown user.
>
> Is there any way to prevent such situations?
Many decennia ago, in RFC 821, and perhaps earlier, the solution
to avoid
address didn't pass DMARC verification and had RUF email
in it's DNS record.
Our mail system based on DMARC DNS record send a DMARC report to that email.
However email in that record was invalid, and the destination server bounced
it with reason that the user is unknown.
This bounced
I added that I can sent test messages via the same relay and they are delivered
successfully
-Original Message-
From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 12:09 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: [pfx] Re: messages passing DMARC are being rejected
On 24.07.23 16:03, Gomes, Rich via Postfix-users wrote:
Clarification below:
I see no clarification, just added disclaimer.
It says nothing about DMARC, just that the mail was sent from external
organization.
From: Gomes, Rich via Postfix-users
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 11:27 AM
Clarification below:
From: Gomes, Rich via Postfix-users
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 11:27 AM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: [pfx] messages passing DMARC are being rejected as failing
CAUTION: This email was sent from an external sender. Do not click links or
open attachments unless
Asking the hive mind to see if anyone has seen this behavior.
Application server sends reservation emails to postfix server running OpenDKIM,
postfix sends directly to O365.
Our DMARC policy is in REJECT mode.
Messages are signed and the NAT is in our SPF record. Message headers state
Tom Reed via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-05-17 09:31:
On 16.05.23 16:38, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
dmarc does not imho use ARC results yet :/
You must configure trusted ARC signers.
You can't blindly trust ARC just like you can't blindly trust SPF
May I ask what policyd
Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-05-17 09:28:
On 16.05.23 16:38, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
dmarc does not imho use ARC results yet :/
You must configure trusted ARC signers. You can't blindly trust ARC
just like you can't blindly trust SPF
i recheck my
On 17/05/2023 08:18, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote:
On 16.05.23 22:11, Tom Reed via Postfix-users wrote:
For OpenDMARC this setting:
SPFSelfValidate true
this only causes opendmarc to resolve SPF itself instead of using existing
Authentication-Results: header.
Actually (from
On 16.05.23 16:38, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
dmarc does not imho use ARC results yet :/
You must configure trusted ARC signers.
You can't blindly trust ARC just like you can't blindly trust SPF
On 17.05.23 15:31, Tom Reed via Postfix-users wrote:
May I ask what policyd
On 17.05.23 09:09, Tom Reed via Postfix-users wrote:
I found that, after I enable opendmarc to reject messages, there are some
issues for list addresses. for example, this rejected message shows:
: host mx1.dkinbox.com[193.106.250.86] said: 550 5.7.1
rejected by DMARC policy
> On 16.05.23 16:38, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
>>dmarc does not imho use ARC results yet :/
>
> You must configure trusted ARC signers.
> You can't blindly trust ARC just like you can't blindly trust SPF
>
May I ask what policyd or milter you use for SPF ch
On 16.05.23 16:38, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
dmarc does not imho use ARC results yet :/
You must configure trusted ARC signers.
You can't blindly trust ARC just like you can't blindly trust SPF
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I
> SPF is designed for validating envelope from: and should not be used for
> header From:
>
> Microsoft attempt to create SPF/2 has failed and should not be used
> either.
>
That's OK. thanks for the info.
--
sent from https://dkinbox.com/
___
On 16.05.23 22:11, Tom Reed via Postfix-users wrote:
For OpenDMARC this setting:
SPFSelfValidate true
this only causes opendmarc to resolve SPF itself instead of using existing
Authentication-Results: header.
Can it handle the case when incoming message has rewritten
envelope address by
nt to mailing list which rewrites envelope
>> > address
>> > and adds list signature, so:
>> >
>> > 1) SPF for header From: address won't get pass due to SRS.
>> > 2) DKIM won't get pass due to list signature.
>> >
>> > So the DMARC fa
velope
> > address
> > and adds list signature, so:
> >
> > 1) SPF for header From: address won't get pass due to SRS.
> > 2) DKIM won't get pass due to list signature.
> >
> > So the DMARC failed totally and the message was rejected.
> >
>
) DKIM won't get pass due to list signature.
So the DMARC failed totally and the message was rejected.
How to improve this?
Do not reject mail solely based on DMARC failure.
DMARC is fragile and unreliable. It has WELL-KNOWN incompatibilities
with traditional mailing list practices. The fact
It appears that Tom Reed via Postfix-users said:
>Since the message was sent to mailing list which rewrites envelope address
>and adds list signature, so:
>
>1) SPF for header From: address won't get pass due to SRS.
>2) DKIM won't get pass due to list signature.
>
>So the
Greeting members,
I found that, after I enable opendmarc to reject messages, there are some
issues for list addresses. for example, this rejected message shows:
: host mx1.dkinbox.com[193.106.250.86] said: 550 5.7.1
rejected by DMARC policy for radlogic.com.au (in reply to end of DATA
K.I.S.S.
Because of forwarding, both SPF or DKIM signatures *could* be broken. This is
what DMARC was introduced for.
DMARC checks the results of both SPF and DKIM, and as long as one of those two
passes then the mail is good so DMARC passes.
If both SPF and DKIM fail, then DMARC fails
Bill Cole via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-05-16 17:34:
I have no idea what the answer to that is, as I don't use OpenDMARC.
You may want to figure out where, if anywhere, OpenDMARC support is
available.
http://www.trusteddomain.org/opendmarc/
___
(Tue, 16 May 2023 20:16:21 +0800)
Tom Reed via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
Hello list,
Should we reject failed message on DKIM validation stage, or DMARC
validation stage, or both?
Generally, neither.
IF (and ONLY IF) the "From: " header address domain aligns with the
DK
sense to treat a
message with a DKIM signature that failed to verify any more harshly
than you would unsigned mail.
DMARC does have such a policy component. Rejecting mail which fails
DMARC for domains that have a policy of p=reject is common. DMARC
does have a high error rate for some
Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-05-16 15:04:
DMARC does have such a policy component. Rejecting mail which fails
DMARC for domains that have a policy of p=reject is common. DMARC
does have a high error rate for some types of email, so I would
recommend a careful evaluation
João Silva via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-05-16 14:49:
Yes, straight to a Spam folder.
a bit silly if its a maillist, if its spam why not unsubscribe ?
i loose maybe :/
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe
Tom Reed via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-05-16 14:41:
so for both DKIM and DMARC failure you send them to spam folder?
what dmarc policy ?, none, quarantine, reject ?
forget dkim here, its not designed to be a spam scanner
___
Postfix-users
Tom Reed via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-05-16 14:16:
Should we reject failed message on DKIM validation stage, or DMARC
validation stage, or both?
if dkim is based on reject you will ignore dmarc policy, just dont
reject is safe :)
tip, add ipwhitelist in both so you never ever reject
-16 at 08:16:21 UTC-0400 (Tue, 16 May 2023 20:16:21 +0800)
> Tom Reed via Postfix-users
> is rumored to have said:
>
>> Hello list,
>>
>> Should we reject failed message on DKIM validation stage, or DMARC
>> validation stage, or both?
>
> Generally, neither
>> rejection. I don't think it makes logical sense to treat a message with a
>> DKIM signature that failed to verify any more harshly than you would
>> unsigned mail.
>>
>> DMARC does have such a policy component. Rejecting mail which fails DMARC
>> for do
Tom Reed via Postfix-users writes:
> Hello list,
>
> Should we reject failed message on DKIM validation stage, or DMARC
> validation stage, or both?
I even DKIM-sign the mail one more time. For forwarding to Gmail.
See https://gitlab.com/soyeomul/Gnus/-/raw/master/DKIM/setu
Dnia 16.05.2023 o godz. 20:16:21 Tom Reed via Postfix-users pisze:
>
> Should we reject failed message on DKIM validation stage, or DMARC
> validation stage, or both?
There is no rule ststing what you "should" do in these cases. It depends on
what you *want* to do, that is
IM signature that failed to verify any more harshly than you would unsigned
> mail.
>
> DMARC does have such a policy component. Rejecting mail which fails DMARC
> for domains that have a policy of p=reject is common. DMARC does have a high
> error rate for some types of email, so
On 2023-05-16 at 08:16:21 UTC-0400 (Tue, 16 May 2023 20:16:21 +0800)
Tom Reed via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
Hello list,
Should we reject failed message on DKIM validation stage, or DMARC
validation stage, or both?
Generally, neither.
IF (and ONLY IF) the "From: &qu
On May 16, 2023 12:16:21 PM UTC, Tom Reed via Postfix-users
wrote:
>Hello list,
>
>Should we reject failed message on DKIM validation stage, or DMARC
>validation stage, or both?
No and it depends.
DKIM has no policy mechanism associated with it, so there's no basis in any
Yes, straight to a Spam folder.
On 16/05/2023 13:41, Tom Reed via Postfix-users wrote:
On 16/05/2023 13:16, Tom Reed via Postfix-users wrote:
Hello list,
Should we reject failed message on DKIM validation stage, or DMARC
validation stage, or both?
Just my opinion...
I see lots (and I mean
>
> On 16/05/2023 13:16, Tom Reed via Postfix-users wrote:
>> Hello list,
>>
>> Should we reject failed message on DKIM validation stage, or DMARC
>> validation stage, or both?
>
> Just my opinion...
>
> I see lots (and I mean lots) of DKIM fai
On 16/05/2023 13:16, Tom Reed via Postfix-users wrote:
Hello list,
Should we reject failed message on DKIM validation stage, or DMARC
validation stage, or both?
Just my opinion...
I see lots (and I mean lots) of DKIM failures due to mails sent to
mailing lists that have clueless
Hello list,
Should we reject failed message on DKIM validation stage, or DMARC
validation stage, or both?
Thanks.
--
sent from https://dkinbox.com/
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix
@postfix.org
Oggetto: Re: DMARC milter question
Scappatura Rocco:
I have one postfix server (say, 'myserver.domain.tld') acting as MX for some
domains and as SMTP relay for the SASL authenticated user from the same domains.
On that server I have enabled DMARC milter (other than I have set up DKIM
Scappatura Rocco:
> These are the top lines of my master.cf:
>
> # ==
> # service type private unpriv chroot wakeup maxproc command + args
> # (yes) (yes) (yes) (never) (100)
> #
4 luglio 2022 14:23
A: postfix-users@postfix.org
Oggetto: Re: DMARC milter question
ATTENZIONE: Questa email ha origine esterna all’organizzazione. Non selezionare
link o scaricare allegati, a meno di riconoscere il mittente e di sapere che il
contenuto è sicuro.
Scappatura Rocco:
> I have
Scappatura Rocco:
> I have one postfix server (say, 'myserver.domain.tld') acting as MX for some
> domains and as SMTP relay for the SASL authenticated user from the same
> domains.
>
> On that server I have enabled DMARC milter (other than I have set up DKIM,
>
On 04.07.22 11:14, Scappatura Rocco wrote:
I have one postfix server (say, 'myserver.domain.tld') acting as MX for some
domains and as SMTP relay for the SASL authenticated user from the same domains.
On that server I have enabled DMARC milter (other than I have set up DKIM, and
it works fine
Hello.
I have one postfix server (say, 'myserver.domain.tld') acting as MX for some
domains and as SMTP relay for the SASL authenticated user from the same domains.
On that server I have enabled DMARC milter (other than I have set up DKIM, and
it works fine):
milter_protocol = 2
On 2022-04-14 15:41, A. Schulze wrote:
But it's also a milter. This is intentional: Wietse /
http://www.postfix.org/MILTER_README.html say
"Having yet another Postfix-specific version of all that software is a
poor use of human and system resources."
so why have rspamd ucl, and lua ? :=)
if
Am 13.04.22 um 05:31 schrieb John Levine:
> For doing DMARC validation, I know about the opendmarc milter. Is that what
> everyone uses? Is there anything else used in pratice?
Hello John,
rspamd handle DMARC as well.
But it's also a milter. This is intentional: Wietse /
There is no need to build it in. There are
excellent implementations available.
But exim does X does not convince me.
Wietse
On 4/12/22 23:31, John Levine wrote:
> For doing DMARC validation, I know about the opendmarc milter. Is that what
> everyone uses? Is there anything else used in pratice?
>
> I know about perl and python libraries but they don't seem to have
> milters or other ready to u
On 2022-04-14 08:39, Erwan David wrote:
I stopped rspamd because of too many false positive, too many rules
that you cannot disable (I disabled RBL & SPF checks which lead to
erros).
rspamd is for pilots only, that know ucl is much more simple then well
supported xml files, with plenty of
Le 14/04/2022 à 07:58, Aban Dokht a écrit :
P V Anthony wrote:
Rspamd is really powerful and fast.
Give it a go. You will be very pleased.
P.V.Anthony
I also prefer rspamd over other solutions, because it implemets DMARC
out of the box.
Also other features, like ARC, HA ready
P V Anthony wrote:
Rspamd is really powerful and fast.
Give it a go. You will be very pleased.
P.V.Anthony
I also prefer rspamd over other solutions, because it implemets DMARC out of
the box.
Also other features, like ARC, HA ready and the nice UI make it worth to give
it a try
On 14/4/2022 8:18 am, raf wrote:
I too like rspamd.
I've read that it was not maintained, someone took over it ?
Jeff
I think you read wrong. The original author put out a release 5 days ago.
And there were 8 new contributors for that release.
The release before that was last November.
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 02:11:55AM +0200, Jean-François Bachelet
wrote:
> Hello ^^)
>
> Le 13/04/2022 à 17:28, P V Anthony a écrit :
> > On 13/4/2022 3:24 pm, Juri Haberland wrote:
> >
> > > There is rspamd. It does more than just DMARC, but seems to be in bet
Hello ^^)
Le 13/04/2022 à 17:28, P V Anthony a écrit :
On 13/4/2022 3:24 pm, Juri Haberland wrote:
There is rspamd. It does more than just DMARC, but seems to be in better
shape than OpenDMARC.
I too like rspamd.
I've read that it was not maintained, someone took over it ?
Jeff
On 13/4/2022 3:24 pm, Juri Haberland wrote:
There is rspamd. It does more than just DMARC, but seems to be in better
shape than OpenDMARC.
I too like rspamd.
P.V.Anthony
> There is rspamd. It does more than just DMARC, but seems to be in better
> shape than OpenDMARC.
I use OpenDMARC and have not noticed any issues.
More than one person has said it has issues, what are the problems with it?
On 4/12/22 11:31 PM, John Levine wrote:
For doing DMARC validation, I know about the opendmarc milter. Is that what
everyone uses? Is there anything else used in pratice?
for inbound validation, i use
https://github.com/fastmail/authentication_milter
usable as milter or smtp filter
On 13/04/2022 05:31, John Levine wrote:
> For doing DMARC validation, I know about the opendmarc milter. Is that what
> everyone uses? Is there anything else used in pratice?
>
> I know about perl and python libraries but they don't seem to have
> milters or other ready to u
1 - 100 of 425 matches
Mail list logo
