On 25-03-08 13:05:42, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:
>
> I would not recommend dropping messages that are missing SPF or DKIM, you will
> end up dropping a lot fo legitimate mail if you do this. If you want a better
> idea might be to have it affect the SPAM score in a system such as rspamd so
> that a missing record does not in and of itself cause a message to be rejected
> but combined with other factors it can cause that message to be flagged as
> SPAM.
Well, i maybe seeing only in black and white, but if somebody is careless enough
to not set SPF and DKIM, they pretty much asked for it. These mechanisms are in
place to help fighting spam, after all. So yeah, i hear what you say and it
looks that i'll have to adapt my anti-spam strategy based on the feedback i get
from the logs.
> As stated above your SPF milter is configured to reject messages that fail the
> SPF check, but a missing SPF record is not considered a "fail". I cannot
> speak for your opendmarc configuration but I would hazard a guess that it is
> configured the same. It is likely possible to configure them to also reject
> messages that are missing the SPF or DKIM records all together but how to do
> that is off-topic for the postfix list.
What i don't quite understand is why the open[dkim|dmarc] documentation say that
messages that fail the respective checks are going to be rejected, while in
practice this isn't so. One of those mysteries...
Nevermind, this isn't the right place to discuss, except if maybe postfix
interprets the open[dkim|dmarc] return code in specific way.
Petko
_______________________________________________
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
