Chris Stankevitz:
> http://www.postfix.org/STANDARD_CONFIGURATION_README.html
>
> To whoever dreamed up the "configuration commands with line number
> followed by a translation": thank you
I'm sure I must have gotten the idea from the days that computer
systems filled a room, they were hard to u
http://www.postfix.org/STANDARD_CONFIGURATION_README.html
To whoever dreamed up the "configuration commands with line number
followed by a translation": thank you
Chris
Hashcash does already work on protocol level, but for a widely deployment to
happen, senders must start using it "at own initiative", before receivers
can start enforcing them.
Once senders have adopted the system, receivers can simply start enforcing
hashcash.
Enforcing hashcash means rejecti
Thank you Sebastion ! i'll check on that better !
Though, it does not solve the part of spam generation. Spams are still
generated but killed on the Receiver side. If all this could be implemented on
the protocol level and 'on demand' than it would work much better.
Cheers,
Gergely
___
IT do already exist:
http://www.hashcash.org/
Im already using it.
See this mail, you find this header:
X-Hashcash:
1:26:150428:nielsen.sebast...@gmail.com::8G9E5dBe8isoyoyL:07iLtb
Thats a proof-of-work system with hashcash. Im currently have a module in my
out
Dear List,
I was advised to come to this list with the idea below. I apologize if this is
not the right forum, in that case please point be to more appropriate list. In
any case i would appreciate any feedback on the thoughts below, which I try to
explain very densly and can of course eloborat
On Wednesday, May 06, 2015 02:12:04 PM Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Scott Kitterman said:
> > Great. Feel free to throw RFC 7208 Section 3.4 (Record Size) at them.
> > The
> > SHOULD fit in a UDP packet is there for a reason.
>
> I see your RFC and raise you RFC 6891. "[f]it in a UDP
Once upon a time, Scott Kitterman said:
> Great. Feel free to throw RFC 7208 Section 3.4 (Record Size) at them. The
> SHOULD fit in a UDP packet is there for a reason.
I see your RFC and raise you RFC 6891. "[f]it in a UDP packet" does not
mean 512 bytes.
--
Chris Adams
On Wed, 06 May 2015 13:59:44 -0400, Scott Kitterman stated:
> Great. Feel free to throw RFC 7208 Section 3.4 (Record Size) at them. The
> SHOULD fit in a UDP packet is there for a reason.
SHOULD ≠ MUST
--
Jerry
On Wednesday, May 06, 2015 05:17:12 PM Tobi wrote:
> @Scott
>
> thanks for putting me into the right direction :-)
> The answer for spf1.amazon.com TXT is indeed too big for UDP. So the
> query was retried in TCP mode.
> But the stupid admin (aka myself) forgot that he disabled tcp on the
> mailse
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Bill Cole <
postfixlists-070...@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote:
> On 6 May 2015, at 10:20, Steve Jenkins wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Vijay Rajah wrote:
>>
>> There was a missing persons report on a Stanley D Hoeppner. This name no
>>> longer appear
I have it on good authority that he is still in Missouri but is absent due to a
personal nature.
I will share more if allowed in time.
In the interim, I've been checking to see if I can get his domain back up for
everyone again.
Thanks,
Steffan
> On May 6, 2015, at 8:21 AM, Bill Cole
> wr
@Scott
thanks for putting me into the right direction :-)
The answer for spf1.amazon.com TXT is indeed too big for UDP. So the
query was retried in TCP mode.
But the stupid admin (aka myself) forgot that he disabled tcp on the
mailservers local resolvers (unbound). After enabling tcp mode for
On 6 May 2015, at 10:20, Steve Jenkins wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Vijay Rajah wrote:
There was a missing persons report on a Stanley D Hoeppner. This name
no
longer appears on the active missing persons list. Hope he is ok.
FYI:
http://i.imgur.com/3oiR3ID.png
That's VERY co
On Wed, May 6, 2015 10:11, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 06, 2015 09:58:57 AM James B. Byrne wrote:
>>
>> Amazon has screwed up their spf records. A DNS host can have only
>> ONE spf TXT RR and that must not contain or recursively resolve to
>> more than TEN tags.
>
> No. That's not
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Vijay Rajah wrote:
> There was a missing persons report on a Stanley D Hoeppner. This name no
> longer appears on the active missing persons list. Hope he is ok. FYI:
> http://i.imgur.com/3oiR3ID.png
That's VERY concerning. He is from Missouri, so I think that
On Wednesday, May 06, 2015 09:58:57 AM James B. Byrne wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 09:45, Tobi wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> > Hi list
> >
> > I know it's technically not a postfix issue :-) But maybe someone else
> > here on this list has the same problem.
On Wed, May 6, 2015 09:45, Tobi wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Hi list
>
> I know it's technically not a postfix issue :-) But maybe someone else
> here on this list has the same problem.
> I'm using Postfix with postfix-policyd-spf-perl About 4 or 5 days ago
> I st
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi list
I know it's technically not a postfix issue :-) But maybe someone else
here on this list has the same problem.
I'm using Postfix with postfix-policyd-spf-perl About 4 or 5 days ago
I started to get error messages from postfix for mails from
Hi Viktor,
thank you very much, you gave me the right hint!
In the past, when we had a dynamic ip, we used the gmail relays for
sending mail from the local domains (those relays can be authorized to
send for any domain or email address).
I've commented these lines in the sender_dependent file la
20 matches
Mail list logo
