On November 20, 2022 11:47:02 PM UTC, raf <post...@raf.org> wrote:
>On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 03:29:33PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
><uh...@fantomas.sk> wrote:
>
>> > On 16/11/2022 11:45, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> > > I use:
>> > > spf-milter (the same source as policyd-spf-python)
>> > > opendkim
>> > > openarc
>> > > opendmarc
>> > >
>> > > so far in soft mode (no rejections)
>> > >
>> > > opendmarc can use results of previous three in its decisions.
>>
>> On 20.11.22 08:21, Dominic Raferd wrote:
>> > Does spf-milter have the same source as policyd-spf-python? It looks to
>> > me like a completely separate project, based on viaspf (both written in
>> > Rust). Or did you mean spf-milter-python (Debian package)?
>>
>> Sorry, you are correct.
>>
>> There was no other spf milter available in debian when I checked.
>>
>> Package: pyspf-milter
>> Source: spf-engine
>>
>> Package: postfix-policyd-spf-python
>> Source: spf-engine
>
>There are also Debian packages for policy server versions:
>
> postfix-policyd-spf-perl
> postfix-policyd-spf-python
The Perl implementation is very rudimentary. Unless one is completely allergic
to Python for some reason, I definitely recommend the Python one.
The backend logic/code in pyspf-milter is shared with the policy server. For
Postfix, I don't think it matters much if you use the milter or the policy
server.
Scott K
