On March 27, 2019 12:57:12 AM UTC, Esteban L wrote:
>Thank you Scott K.
>
>I just read the RFC7208, very well written.
>
>My favorite line was at the end in the second to last paragraph,
>talking about TempError local policy considerations:
>
>"..this adds one more piece of complexity to an
Thank you Scott K.
I just read the RFC7208, very well written.
My favorite line was at the end in the second to last paragraph,
talking about TempError local policy considerations:
"..this adds one more piece of complexity to an already non-trivial
environment"
I'll say.
I will look at it
On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 01:49:08 PM Esteban L wrote:
> Hello,
>
> My SPF record appears to be in order, using the SPF query tool at
> kitterman dot com.
>
> Also, I do not appear to have any problems receiving or sending emails,
> outside of this minor temperror message.
>
> However, the
* Bill Cole:
> That's a level which makes me feel pretty sure that something in the
> postfix-users pipeline is making an otherwise harmless change to those
> messages.
I have not checked every single message, but I just inspected a few of
my own posts to this mailing list, and the signatures
On 26 Mar 2019, at 15:41, Ralph Seichter wrote:
* Bill Cole:
One solution would be to not break DKIM signatures. However, this is
harder than it seems.
Not modifying messages' bodies or any signed headers seems to do the
trick. :-)
Easier said than done, apparently.
About 5% of signed
* Bill Cole:
> One solution would be to not break DKIM signatures. However, this is
> harder than it seems.
Not modifying messages' bodies or any signed headers seems to do the
trick. :-) With that in mind, I have recently filed an issue for Mailman
3, asking for configuration mechanics to
On 26 Mar 2019, at 14:47, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 26.03.19 13:22, Bill Cole wrote:
Which is not a bad thing, in this context.
The problem is that most mailing lists routinely break DKIM signatures
anyway.
usually when they prepend Subject with a text (e.g. list id).
Often they
On 26 Mar 2019, at 13:39, Ralph Seichter wrote:
* Bill Cole:
Hence I wrote "break existing DKIM signatures".
Which is not a bad thing, in this context.
The OP made no mention of implementing DMARC himself, just modifying
headers.
It's not about whether the list operator implements DMARC
* Matus UHLAR:
Modifying the "From" header is pretty much guaranteed to break
existing
DKIM signatures [...]
many mailing lists modify the "From:" header in order to create their
own DKIM signature pass and conform to DMARC.
On 26 Mar 2019, at 13:09, Ralph Seichter wrote:
Hence I wrote
luc...@dds.nl:
Hi List,
I am running a mailing list server using?the ListServ software. List
members can send a message to a list, and the software essentially
forwards the message to the entire list, using the?following headers:
? ? Sender:
? ? From:
I use my own Postfix implementation
luc...@dds.nl:
> Hi List,
>
>
> I am running a mailing list server using?the ListServ software. List
> members can send a message to a list, and the software essentially
> forwards the message to the entire list, using the?following headers:
> ? ? Sender:
> ? ? From:
> I use my own Postfix
* Bill Cole:
> > Hence I wrote "break existing DKIM signatures".
>
> Which is not a bad thing, in this context.
The OP made no mention of implementing DMARC himself, just modifying
headers. In that scenario, I consider breaking existing signatures a bad
thing. I am aware of alignment mechanics,
On 3/26/2019 10:01 AM, De Petter Mattheas wrote:
So when we have sat communication mail leaves the vessel on the
spot, but w= hen we have not sat comm mail has to stay in queue
until sat comes back.
Thing is when are vessel is in voyage on the ocean there are places
where t= here is no
On 26 Mar 2019, at 13:09, Ralph Seichter wrote:
* Matus UHLAR:
Modifying the "From" header is pretty much guaranteed to break
existing
DKIM signatures [...]
many mailing lists modify the "From:" header in order to create their
own DKIM signature pass and conform to DMARC.
Hence I wrote
* Matus UHLAR:
>>Modifying the "From" header is pretty much guaranteed to break existing
>>DKIM signatures [...]
>
> many mailing lists modify the "From:" header in order to create their
> own DKIM signature pass and conform to DMARC.
Hence I wrote "break existing DKIM signatures".
-Ralph
* lucas2:
Is it possible to configure Postfix to replace the address in the
"From:" header with the value in the "Sender:" header?
On 26.03.19 17:50, Ralph Seichter wrote:
Modifying the "From" header is pretty much guaranteed to break existing
DKIM signatures (I have never seen anybody not
* lucas2:
> Is it possible to configure Postfix to replace the address in the
> "From:" header with the value in the "Sender:" header?
Modifying the "From" header is pretty much guaranteed to break existing
DKIM signatures (I have never seen anybody not sign "From"), so I doubt
that would
Hi List,
I am running a mailing list server using the ListServ software. List
members can send a message to a list, and the software essentially
forwards the message to the entire list, using the following headers:
Sender:
From:
I use my own Postfix implementation as SMTP server to
De Petter Mattheas:
> Hello
>
> Is there a way for postfix to store its mailq on a nfs share?
Yes. See also http://www.postfix.org/NFS_README.html.
Wietse
Hello
Is there a way for postfix to store its mailq on a nfs share?
And what do i need to change to make it store the q over there.
The nfs share is mounted to the postfix server in the fstab config file.
Case for this is, we are using postfix in a poc case for are vessel mail as= a
Hello,
My SPF record appears to be in order, using the SPF query tool at
kitterman dot com.
Also, I do not appear to have any problems receiving or sending emails,
outside of this minor temperror message.
However, the header kind of irks me, since it always returns the
following header.
21 matches
Mail list logo
