On 11/18/2017 12:54 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> /dev/rob0 skrev den 2017-11-18 18:36:
>
>> Again, as Noel said twice upthread, it makes more sense to do the
>> whitelisting in Postfix rather than in the policy server. Just a
>> simple check_client_access lookup, an example of which was given
>> a
/dev/rob0 skrev den 2017-11-18 18:36:
Again, as Noel said twice upthread, it makes more sense to do the
whitelisting in Postfix rather than in the policy server. Just a
simple check_client_access lookup, an example of which was given
already.
why not help resolve policyd-spf-perl to have whit
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 02:56:17PM -0800, Gao wrote:
> Is there anything I can configure it to whitelist my backup mx IP?
Again, as Noel said twice upthread, it makes more sense to do the
whitelisting in Postfix rather than in the policy server. Just a
simple check_client_access lookup, an exam
On 18 November 2017 at 14:46, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Dominic Raferd skrev den 2017-11-18 09:55:
>
> I conclude that, for me, blocking on the basis of spf would have a
>> negligible effect on my incoming spam and an unacceptable level of
>> false positives. Obviously other people's mileage might
Dominic Raferd skrev den 2017-11-18 09:55:
I conclude that, for me, blocking on the basis of spf would have a
negligible effect on my incoming spam and an unacceptable level of
false positives. Obviously other people's mileage might vary.
and opendmarc have spf bugs :/
This thread has prompted me to look at my opendmarc log records - these
cover all incoming mails to my mailservers, not only those from senders
that use dmarc. Helpfully, the logs show the pure spf test results; these
actually come from policyd-spf which I run with 'defaultSeedOnly = 1' so it
merel
