On Thu 07/Oct/2021 11:13:22 +0200 Mark Foster via mailop wrote:
And that, actually, is why I choose not to do mail forwarding anymore - because
I can't influence the decisions of the parties to whom my users may want to
forward email.
The old SMTP spec still says that a forwarded message
Merging responses to two thread followups below:
On 6/10/2021 11:54 am, Neil Jenkins via mailop wrote:
On Wed, 6 Oct 2021, at 08:42, Mark Foster via mailop wrote:
I think people using forwarding _know_ that SPF breaks their stuff.
That is a very optimistic viewpoint about the baseline
Dnia 6.10.2021 o godz. 10:42:52 Mark Foster via mailop pisze:
>
> I think people who publish a -all SPF record are _outright telling
> you_ to refuse email that doesn't pass SPF.
And I think they are not. Rather they are just following some SPF setup
guidelines they found somewhere, without
On Wed, 6 Oct 2021, at 08:42, Mark Foster via mailop wrote:
> I think people using forwarding _know_ that SPF breaks their stuff.
That is a very optimistic viewpoint about the baseline technical knowledge of
users.
> I think people who publish a -all SPF record are _outright telling you_
> to
Hi,
Dňa 4 Oct 2021 23:06:53 -0400 John Levine via mailop
napísal:
> I think you will find that rejecting on SPF -all (other than the
> special case of a bare -all meaning we send no mail) will make you
> reject a lot of perfectly good mail. So don't do that.
I check log for last month (30
It appears that Slavko via mailop said:
>But joking apart, basically the 6.7 section gives answer to my question,
>that SPF -all is typically ignored for p= other than none.
I think you will find that rejecting on SPF -all (other than the special
case of a bare -all meaning we send no mail) will
Hi,
Dňa Mon, 4 Oct 2021 21:15:25 +0200 Alessandro Vesely via mailop
napísal:
> That's if exim can lookup dnswl and accept spf=fail for whitelisted
> IPs.
Ah, i understand now, thanks. I think about it too awkwardly ;-)
regards
--
Slavko
http://slavino.sk
pgpF0bsgW4OUX.pgp
Description:
On Mon 04/Oct/2021 20:31:54 +0200 Slavko via mailop wrote:
Honoring SPF -all is too harsh anyway. It is very efficient because
you can reject before DATA, but needs to be softened. IME, using a
whitelist such as dnswl.org is enough to get rid of clowns pretending
to be your domain (if you
Hi,
thanks for all answers, all was useful.
Note: I am talking (asking) about incoming emails, not about my domain.
Dňa Mon, 4 Oct 2021 14:15:03 +0200 Alessandro Vesely via mailop
napísal:
> You can consider either the union or the intersection.
OK, i read suggested 6.7 and 10.1 sections of
On Mon 04/Oct/2021 12:24:31 +0200 Slavko via mailop wrote:
AFAIK, even when SPF in DMARC fails, there still can be DMARC success
with DKIM and this can leads to ignore SPF -/~all. I am confused...
You can consider either the union or the intersection.
Honoring SPF -all is too harsh anyway.
On 4-10-21 13:27, Dan Mahoney via mailop wrote:
>> On Oct 4, 2021, at 3:24 AM, Slavko via mailop wrote:
>>
>> please i want to ask how to deal with pure SPF when DMARC is in use. I
>> understand how to deal with SPF within DMARC checks and i do not want to
>> diskuss this.
>>
>> But what if
> On Oct 4, 2021, at 3:24 AM, Slavko via mailop wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> Hi,
>
> please i want to ask how to deal with pure SPF when DMARC is in use. I
> understand how to deal with SPF within DMARC checks and i do not want to
> diskuss this.
>
> But what if domain owner specify eg. -all
Hi,
please i want to ask how to deal with pure SPF when DMARC is in use. I
understand how to deal with SPF within DMARC checks and i do not want to
diskuss this.
But what if domain owner specify eg. -all (or ~all) and SPF check
against SMTP.From (or EHLO) fails (or softfails) with this rule?
13 matches
Mail list logo
