ource code.
Someone wrote: "Return-path is a header added by the receiving MTA
(usually on final
delivery) that contains the envelope sender (MAIL FROM) used by the
sending system.
On 06/29/2016 11:22 AM, Jan Ceuleers wrote:
On 29/06/16 17:02, Chip wrote:
If Return-path is added by receiving
: <sears2.5...@envfrm.rsys2.com>
From: "Sears" <se...@value.sears.com>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2:
X-Mozilla-Keys:
Return-Path: <bar...@restaurantloot.com>
From: lucky <lu...@restaurantloot.com>
On 06/29/2016 10:50 AM, Kris Deugau wrote:
Ch
My mistake NOT "bounces-to" rather "return-path" as in the following
snippet of campaign emails from Home Depot, Martha Stewart and Sears:
From - Mon Jun 20 08:43:03 2016
X-Account-Key: account15
X-UIDL: UID1962-1324328699
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2:
X-Mozilla-Keys:
-to rather than
reply-to. After all, why have the field at all if it's not used properly.
On 06/28/2016 01:51 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 6/28/2016 12:12 PM, Chip wrote:
Meaning there are no standards for the way
emailers should respond to bounces?
bounces always go to the envelope sender
Okay I guess it does. Meaning there are no standards for the way
emailers should respond to bounces?
On 06/28/2016 12:54 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Chip:
I know this question is not specifically germane to Postfix but everyone
on this list has extensive experience with bouncing policies
I know this question is not specifically germane to Postfix but everyone
on this list has extensive experience with bouncing policies.
If a receiver of campaign emails (that promotes itself as an email
security service) sends bounces to "reply-to" rather than "bounces-to"
as a policy despite
- was it SPF and/or DKIM compliant and if so, add the friggin'
header so the MDA can decide on that and only that element.
Am I right here?
On 06/26/2016 11:37 PM, Peter wrote:
On 27/06/16 08:44, Chip wrote:
John Doe receives email at john...@abc.com.
He is ONLY to receive email that is fully DKIM
it, doing the subject line rewrite to indicate
SPF/DKIM failure is the best approach. You could even run a rule on
the very simple email clients found on phones, or just use your eyeballs.
*From: *Chip
*Sent: *Sunday, June 26, 2016 7:25 PM
*To: *li...@lazygranch.com
*Reply To: *jeffsch...@gma
with condition
test "!(sylpheed-spf.pl -c < %F)"
On 06/26/2016 10:13 PM, li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
I'd say you are onto something.
http://www.willamowius.de/claws-spf.html
Unfortunately SPF has a very high failure rate due to remailers. But
it's a start.
*From: *Chip
*Sent: *Su
n I suggested a plugin for CLAWS email client to check DKIM
and SPF, the silence was deafening.
Original Message
From: Chip
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 4:41 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org <mailto:postfix-users@postfix.org>
Reply To: jeffsch...@gmail.com <mailto:je
Thanks,
So it just may be easier to deliver all messages to a folder then have a
cron job run some spf/dkim checking script against the emails.
On 06/26/2016 05:53 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
On 26 Jun 2016, at 16:44, Chip wrote:
I'm wondering if Postfix can do the following easily.
Nope
I'm wondering if Postfix can do the following easily. It's a real dog
to get this setup in Exim.
Here is the scenario.
John Doe receives email at john...@abc.com.
He is ONLY to receive email that is fully DKIM and/or SPF compliant from
anyone at the xyz.com company.
Sometimes people send
12 matches
Mail list logo
