On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 03:48:01PM +0300, Henrik K wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 02:21:49PM +0200, Giovanni Bechis wrote:
> > KAM.cf has already all the needed glue, if you update to trunk and enable
> > DMARC plugin, DMARC rules will use new plugin code.
> > Giovannin
>
> KAM.cf is not from
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 02:21:49PM +0200, Giovanni Bechis wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 12:50:49PM +0300, Henrik K wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:48:52AM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > > > >> >https://pastebin.com/s032ndrA
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >It's not only hitting
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 12:50:49PM +0300, Henrik K wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:48:52AM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > > >> >https://pastebin.com/s032ndrA
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >It's not only hitting DMARC_REJ_NO_DKIM and DMARC_FAIL_REJECT, but
> > > > >>
> > > > >> where did
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:48:52AM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > >> >https://pastebin.com/s032ndrA
> > > >> >
> > > >> >It's not only hitting DMARC_REJ_NO_DKIM and DMARC_FAIL_REJECT, but
> > > >>
> > > >> where did you get these from?
> > >
> > > On 22.04.22 10:02, Alex wrote:
> > >
>> >https://pastebin.com/s032ndrA
>> >
>> >It's not only hitting DMARC_REJ_NO_DKIM and DMARC_FAIL_REJECT, but
>>
>> where did you get these from?
On 22.04.22 10:02, Alex wrote:
>I just realized these are from my local rules, put together from a
>conversation many years ago, apparently from
Hi,
> >> >https://pastebin.com/s032ndrA
> >> >
> >> >It's not only hitting DMARC_REJ_NO_DKIM and DMARC_FAIL_REJECT, but
> >>
> >> where did you get these from?
>
> On 22.04.22 10:02, Alex wrote:
> >I just realized these are from my local rules, put together from a
> >conversation many years ago,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
> > > > > and spf is unapplicable since the envelope from is null.
> > > >
> > > > Isn't that the case with all bounce messages?
>
> > Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
> > > usually yes, it should be. But we of course can't guarantee that.
> > >
> > > This also means that SPF
> > and spf is unapplicable since the envelope from is null.
>
> Isn't that the case with all bounce messages?
Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
usually yes, it should be. But we of course can't guarantee that.
This also means that SPF can't be used, thus either those messages have DKIM
signatures, or
Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
> > > and spf is unapplicable since the envelope from is null.
> >
> > Isn't that the case with all bounce messages?
>
> usually yes, it should be. But we of course can't guarantee that.
>
> This also means that SPF can't be used, thus either those messages have DKIM
>
>https://pastebin.com/s032ndrA
>
>It's not only hitting DMARC_REJ_NO_DKIM and DMARC_FAIL_REJECT, but
where did you get these from?
On 22.04.22 10:02, Alex wrote:
I just realized these are from my local rules, put together from a
conversation many years ago, apparently from before SA had
> >https://pastebin.com/s032ndrA
> >
> >It's not only hitting DMARC_REJ_NO_DKIM and DMARC_FAIL_REJECT, but
>
> where did you get these from?
I just realized these are from my local rules, put together from a
conversation many years ago, apparently from before SA had built-in
DMARC support.
On 22.04.22 08:40, Alex wrote:
I'm seeing bounce messages being tagged incorrectly and would like
some help in how to fix it. This is mail sent from our servers.
https://pastebin.com/s032ndrA
It's not only hitting DMARC_REJ_NO_DKIM and DMARC_FAIL_REJECT, but
where did you get these from?
Hi,
I'm seeing bounce messages being tagged incorrectly and would like
some help in how to fix it. This is mail sent from our servers.
https://pastebin.com/s032ndrA
It's not only hitting DMARC_REJ_NO_DKIM and DMARC_FAIL_REJECT, but
also KAM_DMARC_REJECT, giving it no opportunity to ever get
13 matches
Mail list logo
