Hardy (Mi 27 Sep 2017 15:15:11 CEST):
> Caution: re-ordered paragraphs for emphasis of what I meant. Richard, we
> agree! I just want to point out a nonsense behavior of the exim/libspf2.a
> implementation of SPF.
And I'd like to point out, that's not failure of Exim but of libspf2 (if
this is a
Caution: re-ordered paragraphs for emphasis of what I meant. Richard, we
agree! I just want to point out a nonsense behavior of the
exim/libspf2.a implementation of SPF.
> There are other acl conditions you can use to enforce the
Yes, I said this in my first post: In my box a mail from a l
On 25 September 2017 18:26:27 CEST, Hardy wrote:
>On 25.09.2017 14:45, Heiko Schlittermann via Exim-users wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Hardy (Mo 25 Sep 2017 09:17:34 CEST):
>>> Hi,
and clearly does not include localhost. So passing messags from
localhost might be a feature of SPF in general o
Hi,
> > The string "localhost is always allowed." can be found in libspf2.a
> So this is wanted by exim! I did not check what SPF specs say about it, but
libspf2 is the library, Exim links against. So this is probably a
default, Exim relies on.
> this would mean, my local users CAN forge sender
On 25.09.2017 14:45, Heiko Schlittermann via Exim-users wrote:
Hi,
Hardy (Mo 25 Sep 2017 09:17:34 CEST):
Hi,
and clearly does not include localhost. So passing messags from
localhost might be a feature of SPF in general or of the implementation
in Exim.
I wouldn't think localhost is handled
