On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 02:21:49PM +0200, Giovanni Bechis wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 12:50:49PM +0300, Henrik K wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:48:52AM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > > > >> >https://pastebin.com/s032ndrA > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >It's not only hitting DMARC_REJ_NO_DKIM and DMARC_FAIL_REJECT, but > > > > > >> > > > > > >> where did you get these from? > > > > > > > > > > On 22.04.22 10:02, Alex wrote: > > > > > >I just realized these are from my local rules, put together from a > > > > > >conversation many years ago, apparently from before SA had built-in > > > > > >DMARC support. > > > > > > > > > > > >https://www.mail-archive.com/users@spamassassin.apache.org/msg95643.html > > > > > > > > now I really wonder why these aren't part of stock SA rules. > > > > > > On 24.04.22 14:39, Alex wrote: > > > > Does this mean you are investigating further? > > > > > > not me, as I'm not involved in SA deployment more than by being active > > > here. > > > perhaps you could fill a wishlist report... > > > > > > > Are these rules from the link above useful? > > > > > > looks like they are. KAM.cf contains similar rules, but having them in > > > stock > > > SA would be nice. > > > > Soon released 4.0.0 already has a dedicated DMARC plugin, such rules should > > become obsolete. Testers would be appreciated.. > > > KAM.cf has already all the needed glue, if you update to trunk and enable > DMARC plugin, DMARC rules will use new plugin code. > Giovannin
KAM.cf is not from SA project, not everyone uses it.. the DMARC stuff should be implemented in stock rules for 4.0.0.
