Yes, I do realize the more added to postscreen, the slower it gets, etc.
However, one function that would seem to fit perfectly if it's not too slow
would be spf and dkim checks. SPF we are doing via a milter, and, seems to be
fast. Yes, it's DNS records, but, postscreen already does much worse
Steve Fatula:
Yes, I do realize the more added to postscreen, the slower it gets,
etc. However, one function that would seem to fit perfectly if
it's not too slow would be spf and dkim checks. SPF we are doing
Postscreen by design NEVER SEES THE ENVELOPE OR CONTENT of email
that is received by
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Steve Fatula
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:12 AM
To: Postfix Users
Subject: Postscreen, SPF and DKIM?
However, it is good practice to reject mail that fails spf
Postfix architecture aside, I think this is bad advice, at least about DKIM.
The premises are false.
Care to elaborate? Clearly, this is not possible to do in postscreen sort of
making this moot, but, SPF spec says to reject messages that have status fail.
DKIM says you MAY, and, several
-Original Message-
From: Steve Fatula [mailto:compconsult...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 1:15 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy; Postfix Users
Subject: Re: Postscreen, SPF and DKIM?
Care to elaborate? Clearly, this is not possible to do in postscreen
sort of making
Wietse Venema:
Steve Fatula:
Yes, I do realize the more added to postscreen, the slower it gets,
etc. However, one function that would seem to fit perfectly if
it's not too slow would be spf and dkim checks. SPF we are doing
Postscreen by design NEVER SEES THE ENVELOPE OR CONTENT of
