Dňa 26. januára 2023 12:11:50 UTC používateľ Florian Vierke via mailop
napísal:
>If you implement DMARC as a recipient, you must check for DKIM and for SPF,
>exactly because one of them is sufficient to pass. If you do only check SPF as
>a receiver and the sender is authenticating via DKIM,
On Thu, 2023-01-26 at 12:11 +, Florian Vierke via mailop wrote:
> I have understood it that way:
>
> If you implement DMARC as a recipient, you must check for DKIM and
> for SPF, exactly because one of them is sufficient to pass. If you do
> only check SPF as a receiver and the sender is
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 08:25:20AM +, Gellner, Oliver via mailop wrote:
> So to get back to the question of Jason, I wouldn't call it luck. Your
> mailing lists work as designed and will continue to work. Other mailing lists
> just rewrite the From headers because they like to compose new
On 2023-01-26 00:09, John Levine via mailop wrote:
> It appears that jmurray--- via mailop said:
>>So what I'm hearing is "luck". Perhaps I should revisit the policy.
>>Didn't even realize DMARC with no DKIM was a thing at this point. Thank
>>you.
> Most of the SPF-only DMARC I see is from
It appears that jmurray--- via mailop said:
>> Do you add subject tags or list footers? If you just pass messages through
>> without
>> changing them, it's only slightly surprising that DMARC aligns. But most
>> lists
>> change the messages which make the aligned DKIM signature fail.
>
>Nope,
It appears that Slavko via mailop said:
>Dňa 25. januára 2023 20:52:39 UTC používateľ John Levine via mailop
> napísal:
>
>>A certain number of domains assert a DMARC policy but only use SPF, no
>>DKIM signatures, so you'd expect them to fail alignment. That's the
>>slightly surprising part.
>
Dňa 25. januára 2023 20:52:39 UTC používateľ John Levine via mailop
napísal:
>A certain number of domains assert a DMARC policy but only use SPF, no
>DKIM signatures, so you'd expect them to fail alignment. That's the
>slightly surprising part.
That cannot be named DMARC, as it is SPF **or**
* John Levine via mailop [230125 15:54]:
> It appears that Jason Murray via mailop said:
> >We process DMARC reports on the daily, and have never had an email from our
> >lists fail alignment except in a couple of cases where we had blocked DNS
> >queries
> >coming from destination domains'
It appears that Jason Murray via mailop said:
>We process DMARC reports on the daily, and have never had an email from our
>lists fail alignment except in a couple of cases where we had blocked DNS
>queries
>coming from destination domains' resolvers (oops).
>
>Is this just wild luck? Are we an
* Dan Mahoney via mailop [230110 17:18]:
> In a world of DKIM/DMarc compliance, especially, where “blow away the
> original headers and forward anew” is the best answer, I’m shocked to not
> find something like this as well.
>
The more often I see this stated the more I feel as if I live in
On 2023-01-10 at 13:59 -0800, Dan Mahoney wrote:
> The way postfix handles these aliases, is that it preserves the
> original envelope sender and recipient (which we don’t want anyway),
> and o365 is rejecting on that envelope sender/recipient (that it’s
> not allowed to deliver to our internal
On 1/11/23 3:39 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Why?
Another primary use case I have is a company owner moved a system from
the office to their house as they moved states and the new ISP filters
destination TCP port 25. So having something in the mail wrapper being
able to communicate
On 1/11/23 3:39 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Why?
Your script will run as a part of existing mail flow anyway, within
an existing MTA. Making use of this existing MTA seems to be the
logical choice, instead of trying to replicate its function yourself.
Consider a scenario where the
I've been doing something similar for a good long time.
Blogged about it here:
https://www.spamresource.com/2015/12/mail-forwarding-in-dmarc-world.html
The current version of my forwarding script rewrites the from address,
disables the authentication headers (re-authenticating the message
anew
Dnia 10.01.2023 o godz. 22:40:56 Grant Taylor via mailop pisze:
>
> It doesn't help that part of me wants to integrate the SMTP client
> into the script instead of relying on the local MTA stack /
> infrastructure.
Why?
Your script will run as a part of existing mail flow anyway, within an
On 1/10/23 2:59 PM, Dan Mahoney via mailop wrote:
Sometimes a problem comes across your desk that you say “wait,
how is this not solved yet?”.
Ya
I too have wanted something like this to enhance ~/.forward files on
servers that I manage, while addressing all the problems that you're
I remember thining about this about 6 months ago and looking around for a
solution. I think I was even going to put it in my "fun projects I could do" list.
Best I could find was:
https://github.com/zoni/postforward
but I didn't test it out.
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023, Dan Mahoney via mailop
All,
Sometimes a problem comes across your desk that you say “wait, how is this not
solved yet?”.
At the day job, we have a contact list for our customers that comes from our
ticket system, and it’s stuffed into an alias file with :include:.
The way postfix handles these aliases, is that it
18 matches
Mail list logo
