Mike,
Thanks so much for the offer to direct contact you. In thinking this
over I'm getting the feeling that this route is just asking for trouble.
Even if I got it working now it might be a hassle to maintain and I
don't want to go there. But all this has me looking at what I think
would be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I have built and uploaded Exim 4.91 RC2 to:
https://ftp.exim.org/pub/exim/exim4/test/
Changes since RC1:
- - Fix heavy-pipeline SMTP command input corruption. Bug 2250
- - Fix pipe transport to not use a socket-only syscall. Bug 2257
- - D
On 21/03/18 12:41, Kurt Jaeger via Exim-users wrote:
> Now that someone points to ARC as that might be in our future,
> does anyone already have a ARC implementation for exim ?
Yup. But as an exim developer, I _should_ be operating on
the bleeding edge...
It's in the sourcebase, and will be in t
On 20.03.2018 20:03, Graeme Fowler via Exim-users wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2018, at 12:03, Konstantin Boyandin via Exim-users
wrote:
>> However, the cases I mention do not print anything like above to
>> main.log (and MX records are normally resolved at that moment, both
>> manually and via output of '
Hi!
Now that someone points to ARC as that might be in our future,
does anyone already have a ARC implementation for exim ?
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-12
--
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 2 years to go !
--
## List details at
Hi, Pete -
On 20 March 2018 at 22:04, Pete Schaefers via Exim-users <
exim-users@exim.org> wrote:
> Mike, thanks for taking the time to detail that! I guess I assumed (maybe
> wrongly) that when EXIM forwards a message that the SPF and DKIM of the
> domain on the EXIM server would apply and be in
Mike, thanks for taking the time to detail that! I guess I assumed
(maybe wrongly) that when EXIM forwards a message that the SPF and DKIM
of the domain on the EXIM server would apply and be in the sent forward.
In that case wouldn't all entities align?
Just to make sure I'm stating what I'm t
