Hi Ellie,
--On 5. April 2016 um 14:33:46 +1000 ellie timoney
wrote:
> Sebastian, is there anything you tried that *didn't* work, and if so,
> what happened?
The only thing I tried that didn't work was to add a IPv6 listener and
to HUP the master process. The manpage for master reads (in my
Hi Sebastian,
> > Sebastian, is there anything you tried that *didn't* work, and if so,
> > what happened?
>
> The only thing I tried that didn't work was to add a IPv6 listener and to
> HUP the master process. The manpage for master reads (in my version):
>
>Cyrus-master rereads its co
On 04/04/2016 09:43 AM, Binarus via Info-cyrus wrote:
But the spammer then first has to get a domain and then has to set up the DNS
entries, which obviously is too complicated for most spammers. Furthermore, I
am constantly seeing messages trying to get into the server which originate
from d
Binarus via Info-cyrus wrote:
But with SPF or DKIM, you can immediately blacklist any sender
domain after having received SPAM from that domain.
It would never be a phished stolen account, so that would be safe.
Joseph Brennan
Columbia University Information Technology
Cyrus Home Pa
>
> You are for sure aware that neither SPF nor DKIM are able or designed to
> fight Spam.
I know that a lot of people are stressing this. But it is not my opinion nor
experience (see below).
> In fact more than half of the Spam reaching our inboxes are valid according
> DKIM/SPF so we even m
On 04.04.2016 18:12, Sebastian Hagedorn via Info-cyrus wrote:
> Personally, I think that's a phenomenally stupid approach. As long as you
> can't show me an RFC that says you MUST or even SHOULD use SPF or DKIM,
> you're breaking SMTP.
I think it's a phenomenally intelligent approach. I can't se
Personally, I think that's a phenomenally stupid approach. As long as you
can't show me an RFC that says you MUST or even SHOULD use SPF or DKIM,
you're breaking SMTP.
Due to the exponential increase of spam, we generally have to reject all
messages which are not secured by SPF or DKIM, and we
Zitat von Binarus via Info-cyrus :
Dave,
On 04.04.2016 13:22, Dave McMurtrie wrote:
the messages which are being sent from this mailing list's server
don't seem to be protected by SPF or signed by DKIM. Are there
plans to implement at least one of these in the near future?
We currently
Dave,
On 04.04.2016 16:32, Dave McMurtrie wrote:
> I completely agree. I'll run this up the management chain and see if I
> can get approval. Really, the ideal solution would be to set up a list
> server in the cyrusimap.org domain and handle it there because CMU
> management doesn't care what w
Dave,
On 04.04.2016 13:22, Dave McMurtrie wrote:
>> the messages which are being sent from this mailing list's server don't seem
>> to be protected by SPF or signed by DKIM. Are there plans to implement at
>> least one of these in the near future?
>>
>
> We currently have no plans to implement
Southern Illinois University School of Medicine used Cyrus IMAP from 1998 until
this last Saturday. I would like to thank the Cyrus community and Carnegie
Mellon for their wonderful support of this project. Cyrus was a rock-solid
component of our communications infrastructure for many years. Unf
On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 15:38 +0200, Binarus via Info-cyrus wrote:
> Dear list administrator,
>
> the messages which are being sent from this mailing list's server don't seem
> to be protected by SPF or signed by DKIM. Are there plans to implement at
> least one of these in the near future?
>
We
12 matches
Mail list logo
