One. Last. Message. Of mine.
And sorry for all this mostly off-topic noise.
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20240306214948.V5gSjSiU@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote in
| <20231030191124.5ou-x%stef...@sdaoden.eu>:
||It seems to me there is not much interest of mail
Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote in
<20231030191124.5ou-x%stef...@sdaoden.eu>:
|It seems to me there is not much interest of mail operators in
|stepping to ed25519, reducing the payload of DNS and email?
|I know dkimpy supports it (and more -- but is python, uuuh!) for
|long, but
Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote in
<20231115204142.ga1...@rafa.eu.org>:
|Dnia 15.11.2023 o godz. 20:02:44 Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users pisze:
|> Funnily i just now got while sending a mail to not more than about
|> i think two dozen gmail accounts:
|>
|> Nov 15 18:31:54
Dnia 15.11.2023 o godz. 20:02:44 Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users pisze:
> Funnily i just now got while sending a mail to not more than about
> i think two dozen gmail accounts:
>
> Nov 15 18:31:54 postfix/smtp[30872]: 32CC41605F: host
> gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[66.102.1.27] said:
P.S.:
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20231103002256.iibfi%stef...@sdaoden.eu>:
|Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote in
| :
||>Jens Hoffrichter via Postfix-users wrote in
||> :
||>|On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 8:12 PM Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users
||>| wrote:
||> ...
||>|> Btw i
Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote in
<9d22bd4f4b3f203609d2d676306e8...@junc.eu>:
|Noel Butler via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-11-05 04:53:
|> On 03/11/2023 10:22, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote:
...
|> DKIM, was a problem, but for several years now mailman can do the
|> right
On 06/11/2023 15:43, Jens Hoffrichter via Postfix-users wrote:
I'm currently leaning towards trying dkimpy-milter, as it seems to be
something still in active development, and if things go wrong, it is
always good that the maintainer of the software is still responding
That is probably the
Hi Patrick,
Thank you very much for this list, this was very helpful and exactly
what I was looking for.
Currently, we are only looking into signing mails, not validating
signatures, as we are expanding a currently legacy system which is
supposed to be superseded next year, and we hadn't planned
Patrick Ben Koetter via Postfix-users:
> Noel,
>
> * Noel Butler via Postfix-users :
> > > sys4.de are not removing original DKIM sigs just adding postfix.org's,
> > > which also fails for some reason, but ohh looky that - SPF passes :D
> >
> > Decided to have a look ater lunch, that looks like
On November 6, 2023 12:39:35 PM UTC, Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users
wrote:
>
>
>On November 6, 2023 10:51:06 AM UTC, Patrick Ben Koetter via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>>* Jens Hoffrichter via Postfix-users :
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> We are looking into implementing DKIM signing for one of our
On November 6, 2023 10:51:06 AM UTC, Patrick Ben Koetter via Postfix-users
wrote:
>* Jens Hoffrichter via Postfix-users :
>> Hi!
>>
>> We are looking into implementing DKIM signing for one of our services,
>> and there are multiple ways to implement that.
>>
>> So far I have found that you
Noel,
* Noel Butler via Postfix-users :
> > sys4.de are not removing original DKIM sigs just adding postfix.org's,
> > which also fails for some reason, but ohh looky that - SPF passes :D
>
> Decided to have a look ater lunch, that looks like it would be because sys4
> adds footers, where
* Jens Hoffrichter via Postfix-users :
> Hi!
>
> We are looking into implementing DKIM signing for one of our services,
> and there are multiple ways to implement that.
>
> So far I have found that you can do it with opendkim and amavis - any
> recommendation for one or the other, or maybe
sys4.de are not removing original DKIM sigs just adding postfix.org's,
which also fails for some reason, but ohh looky that - SPF passes :D
Decided to have a look ater lunch, that looks like it would be because
sys4 adds footers, where previously Wietse did not, again if they
configured
On 05/11/2023 20:02, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
DKIM, was a problem, but for several years now mailman can do the
right thing by stripping out the original DKIM headers and rewrites
sender (although you need to know where to add the former) - but only
if the admins set those
On 06/11/2023 02:48, Fred Morris via Postfix-users wrote:
Let's step out of the echo chamber or petri dish or whatever.
On Sun, 5 Nov 2023, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote: Dnia
5.11.2023 o godz. 13:53:46 Noel Butler via Postfix-users pisze: If
correctly forwarded it does not break
Let's step out of the echo chamber or petri dish or whatever.
On Sun, 5 Nov 2023, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote:
Dnia 5.11.2023 o godz. 13:53:46 Noel Butler via Postfix-users pisze:
If correctly forwarded it does not break SPF, since correctly
forwarding rewrites the sender
It's a
Dnia 5.11.2023 o godz. 13:53:46 Noel Butler via Postfix-users pisze:
> If correctly forwarded it does not break SPF, since correctly
> forwarding rewrites the sender, I was an early adopter of SPF and
> always used hard-fail, no lists have rejected my posts from SPF
> (trust me, if they did, I
Noel Butler via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-11-05 04:53:
On 03/11/2023 10:22, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote:
- SPF breaks all hosts which have users that effectively want
their email to be forwarded to a different address.
This is basically any campus, and much, much more.
FUD...
On 03/11/2023 10:22, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote:
- SPF breaks all hosts which have users that effectively want
their email to be forwarded to a different address.
This is basically any campus, and much, much more.
FUD... why do people rely on 15+ years old problems to back their
Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|>Jens Hoffrichter via Postfix-users wrote in
|> :
|>|On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 8:12 PM Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users
|>| wrote:
|> ...
|>|> Btw i would wonder: why do -- as email operators -- still use DKIM
|>|> at all, since there is
Hi!
Thanks for the insight - it was not only about forwarding mail to
gmail (although I understand that this is a big use case being
discussed here), but really about just delivering email to Google /
GMail / Workspace.
The scenario I'm unsure about is the following:
Envelope From is
On 02.11.23 12:04, Jens Hoffrichter via Postfix-users wrote:
Actually, I was just discussing these things - this is just regarding
the new requirements from Google and Yahoo starting Feb 1st.
What happens, if a mail is sent from AmazonSES, with a signature key
from amazonses.com, but with a
Dnia 2.11.2023 o godz. 09:42:01 Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users pisze:
(once more: DKIM applies on header From:, SPF on envelope from:).
On 02.11.23 11:18, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote:
And DMARC requires that both be identical (actually, from the same domain -
user part
Actually, I was just discussing these things - this is just regarding
the new requirements from Google and Yahoo starting Feb 1st.
What happens, if a mail is sent from AmazonSES, with a signature key
from amazonses.com, but with a header from set to something different,
like hoffrichter.no
Would
On November 2, 2023 10:18:38 AM UTC, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users
wrote:
>Dnia 2.11.2023 o godz. 09:42:01 Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
>pisze:
>> (once more: DKIM applies on header From:, SPF on envelope from:).
>
>And DMARC requires that both be identical (actually, from the
Dnia 2.11.2023 o godz. 09:42:01 Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users pisze:
> (once more: DKIM applies on header From:, SPF on envelope from:).
And DMARC requires that both be identical (actually, from the same domain -
user part may be different), which makes things even harder.
--
Jens Hoffrichter via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 8:12 PM Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users
| wrote:
...
|> Btw i would wonder: why do -- as email operators -- still use DKIM
|> at all, since there is ARC and it also offers signatures and
|> verification? The OpenSSL
Hello.
Jens Hoffrichter via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 8:12 PM Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users
| wrote:
...
|> Btw i would wonder: why do -- as email operators -- still use DKIM
|> at all, since there is ARC and it also offers signatures and
|> verification? The
Steffen,
Because Google / Gmail / Google Workspace will put out DKIM
requirements for every email from bulk senders from Feb 1st - not ARC
requirements. From what I understand, DMARC alignment only happens on
SPF and DKIM alignment, not on ARC alignment - and because of that,
DKIM is relevant for
First of all, I didn't want to start a religious discussion here about
different tools - for that I apologize!
Viktor, thanks for the insight, that was exactly what I was looking
for, pros and cons for the tools.
We are running a big service in a very slow moving industry, and I
need to
On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 03:54:10PM -0400, Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users
wrote:
> > Scott Kitterman, when he gets around to reading this thread will I hope
> > have more to say the subject.
>
> I've implemented the options from OpenDKIM that I thought made sense. If
> it's
> in the
On Monday, October 30, 2023 3:10:22 PM EDT Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 10:06:46AM +0100, Jens Hoffrichter via Postfix-users
wrote:
> > We are looking into implementing DKIM signing for one of our services,
> > and there are multiple ways to implement that.
Viktor Dukhovni:
> Though dkimpy-milter is likely the more future-proof choice, perhaps
> OpenDKIM is slightly more polished at present, be it also dated (
> lacking some of the newer algorithms).
>
> For signing, lack of bleeding-edge algorithms is less important, so if
> you're not also
postfix-users@postfix.org wrote in
:
|On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 10:06:46AM +0100, Jens Hoffrichter via Postfix-u\
|sers wrote:
|
|> We are looking into implementing DKIM signing for one of our services,
|> and there are multiple ways to implement that.
|>
|> So far I have found that you can
It seems to me there is not much interest of mail operators in
stepping to ed25519, reducing the payload of DNS and email?
I know dkimpy supports it (and more -- but is python, uuuh!) for
long, but OpenDKIM is unchanged for eight years. (At least my
sf.net import from 2017-09-23 still stands.)
On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 10:06:46AM +0100, Jens Hoffrichter via Postfix-users
wrote:
> We are looking into implementing DKIM signing for one of our services,
> and there are multiple ways to implement that.
>
> So far I have found that you can do it with opendkim and amavis - any
>
https://crates.io/crates/dkim-milter is yet another option that I’m
working on.
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
On 30/10/23 19:06, Jens Hoffrichter via Postfix-users wrote:
We are looking into implementing DKIM signing for one of our
services, and there are multiple ways to implement that.
FWIW I use this script on top of a regular opendkim deb install...
https://github.com/markc/sh/blob/main/bin/dkim
On 30.10.23 10:06, Jens Hoffrichter via Postfix-users wrote:
We are looking into implementing DKIM signing for one of our services,
and there are multiple ways to implement that.
So far I have found that you can do it with opendkim and amavis - any
recommendation for one or the other, or maybe
On Mon, 30 Oct 2023, Jens Hoffrichter via Postfix-users wrote:
We are looking into implementing DKIM signing for one of our services,
and there are multiple ways to implement that.
So far I have found that you can do it with opendkim and amavis - any
recommendation for one or the other, or
41 matches
Mail list logo
