Hi Wietse
on 2019/11/27 23:38, Wietse Venema wrote:
[An on-line version of this announcement will be available at
http://www.postfix.org/announcements/postfix-3.4.8.html]
Fixed in Postfix 3.4:
It's really nice to see postfix gets continuous development for these
many years. Wish it becomes
On 27 Nov 2019, at 16:31, @lbutlr wrote:
> On 27 Nov 2019, at 00:15, Wesley Peng wrote:
>> -exists:%{ir}.spf.rambler.ru
>
> That expands to if the IP address (reverse check) plus /spf/rambler.ru exists…
>
> So, of you see a connection from 1.2.3.444 and 1.2.3.444.spf.rambler.ru
> exists, pass
On 27 Nov 2019, at 00:15, Wesley Peng wrote:
> -exists:%{ir}.spf.rambler.ru
That expands to if the IP address (reverse check) plus /spf/rambler.ru exists…
So, of you see a connection from 1.2.3.444 and 1.2.3.444.spf.rambler.ru exists,
pass the spf check.
--
Fairy Tales are more than true;
> On Nov 27, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
>> Would adding a new tenant to the system (i.e. a new route in Postfix)
>> require a restart, interrupting mail flow for existing tenants?
>
> Service disruption is unnecessary. "postfix reload" (not stop+start)
> should suffice.
When
For the routing part I've written a small application that can
translate Postfix' socketmap lookups, tcp lookups and policy requests
into HTTP requests for integrating other applications for dynamic
routing info: [1]. That application is part of a larger application
I've build that does most of
On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 2:03:40 PM EST Ralph Seichter wrote:
> * Matus UHLAR:
> > Once again, SPF does not apply to mail headers.
>
> Matus, I feel your frustration.
>
> I mentioned RFC 7208 before in this thread. If only people would read
> section 2.2
* Matus UHLAR:
> Once again, SPF does not apply to mail headers.
Matus, I feel your frustration.
I mentioned RFC 7208 before in this thread. If only people would read
section 2.2 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7208#section-2.2) ff., to
understand how SPF authorization works and where in the
Gerard E. Seibert:
> I assume that this bug either does not exist in the "3.5" beta
> versions, or has been squashed.
These fixes were tested in Postfix 3.5, and therefore exposed to
real traffic, before they were released in the stable release.
Wietse
Penny Parker:
> Hello
>
> Does anyone have experience of building a multi-tenant service for
> processing incoming email using a single instance of Postfix? I'm
> talking about an Internet-facing service where all service subscribers
> configure their MX records to point to the same host,
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:38:58 -0500 (EST), Wietse Venema stated:
>[An on-line version of this announcement will be available at
>http://www.postfix.org/announcements/postfix-3.4.8.html]
>
>Fixed in Postfix 3.4:
>
> * Fix for an Exim interoperability problem when postscreen after-220
>checks
Hello
Does anyone have experience of building a multi-tenant service for
processing incoming email using a single instance of Postfix? I'm
talking about an Internet-facing service where all service subscribers
configure their MX records to point to the same host, running a single
instance of
[An on-line version of this announcement will be available at
http://www.postfix.org/announcements/postfix-3.4.8.html]
Fixed in Postfix 3.4:
* Fix for an Exim interoperability problem when postscreen after-220
checks are enabled. Bug introduced in Postfix 3.4: the code
that detected
Emanuel:
> Hi,? i use exim locally, with an smarthost through Postfix. It's
> possible add in the log the real IP the real client?
>
> Actually i only see the IP of the relay connection.
The remote client IP address is in the Received: header that EXIM
has added. Use a Postfix header_checks
Hi, i use exim locally, with an smarthost through Postfix. It's
possible add in the log the real IP the real client?
Actually i only see the IP of the relay connection.
Nov 27 10:23:59 smarthost01 postfix/cleanup[18611]: 0F4F8180058A1:
warning: header From: Emanuel from
Am Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:17:36 +0100 schrieb Postfix users
:
Looks like I get listed (again) becouse my conf recjects spam
messages with full body.
I don't fully understand this, can you rephrase?
What to change in postfix configuration to get reject with my message
only and SPAM message
Den 26-11-2019 kl. 17:59 skrev Marek Kozlowski:
OK. I do not insist on postsrsd. I'd really appreciate any
suggestion: what can I use instaed of it - what do you recommend?
On 11/26/19 2:07 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
no one uses spf anymore
incorrect.
since it breaks mailling lists very
> Thanks.
> While I am still not clear about what the description in mxtoolbox.
> Can you give more details?
>
> regards.
>
> on 2019/11/27 16:08, patpro wrote:
>> On 2019-11-27 08:15, Wesley Peng wrote:
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> I saw myrambler.ru has a special setting for SPF:
>>>
>>>
On 2019-11-27 09:31, Wesley Peng wrote:
Thanks.
While I am still not clear about what the description in mxtoolbox.
Can you give more details?
I've never used the "exists" keyword, it's for more advanced use case
and rely on SPF macros. You'll find some examples online, like here:
Am Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:17:36 +0100
schrieb Postfix users :
> Hello,
>
> Looks like I get listed (again) becouse my conf recjects spam
> messages with full body.
>
> What to change in postfix configuration to get reject with my message
> only and SPAM message added as eml attachment ?
>
>
Thanks.
While I am still not clear about what the description in mxtoolbox.
Can you give more details?
regards.
on 2019/11/27 16:08, patpro wrote:
On 2019-11-27 08:15, Wesley Peng wrote:
Hello
I saw myrambler.ru has a special setting for SPF:
myrambler.ru. 3599 IN TXT
Hello,
Looks like I get listed (again) becouse my conf recjects spam messages
with full body.
What to change in postfix configuration to get reject with my message
only and SPAM message added as eml attachment ?
Sebastian
On 2019-11-27 08:15, Wesley Peng wrote:
Hello
I saw myrambler.ru has a special setting for SPF:
myrambler.ru. 3599IN TXT "v=spf1
ip4:81.19.78.96/27 ip4:81.19.78.0/27 ip4:81.19.88.0/24
-exists:%{ir}.spf.rambler.ru ~all"
what does it mean for this part:
22 matches
Mail list logo
