hey,
first, let me thank you for your answer. i really appreciate this!
On Monday, February 24, 2020 12:20:27 AM CET, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
smtpd_tls_security_level = may
smtpd_tls_lloglevel = 1
That's fine, but not consistent with the verbose logging below, did you
temporarily set a higher
On February 24, 2020 4:30:37 AM UTC, Mohamed Lrhazi wrote:
>Thanks all,
>
>My question still was: Suppose I comply with all the recommendations
>and
>best practices in composing my SPF records... Do I still need to worry
>about the number of IP addresses (v4/v6/ciders) that I put in each
>recor
Thanks all,
My question still was: Suppose I comply with all the recommendations and
best practices in composing my SPF records... Do I still need to worry
about the number of IP addresses (v4/v6/ciders) that I put in each record?
I guess if I could really stick with sub 512 bytes records, I coul
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 06:44:34PM -0500, Mohamed Lrhazi wrote:
> record flattening is the process of replacing include, and other lookup
> generating mechanisms, with their resulting ip addresses.
> My question is how many IPs can one put in a single spf record?
>
> It appears the RFC does not t
On 2/23/2020 7:08 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> The limits are a function of DNS, not SPF, which is why RFC 7208 Section 3.4.
> was written.
I would there is also a somewhat arbitrary limit that was picked that
doesn't t match the real world. See
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id
On Sunday, February 23, 2020 6:44:34 PM EST Mohamed Lrhazi wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 3:23 PM Benny
>
> > https://dmarcian.com/spf-survey/?domain=spf.255.cuaemail.org
> >
> > see Record flattening
>
> record flattening is the process of replacing include, and other lookup
> generating mech
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 3:23 PM Benny
>
> https://dmarcian.com/spf-survey/?domain=spf.255.cuaemail.org
>
> see Record flattening
record flattening is the process of replacing include, and other lookup
generating mechanisms, with their resulting ip addresses.
My question is how many IPs can one p
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 10:45:14PM +0100, Michael wrote:
> After upgrading from debian stretch (providing postfix 3.1.14) to
> buster (providing postfix 3.4.8), I just found out that no incoming
> mail was received any longer. Digging a little deeper showed me that
> turning of tls resolved this
hey,
after upgrading from debian stretch (providing postfix 3.1.14) to buster
(providing postfix 3.4.8), i just found out that no incoming mail was
received any longer. digging a little deeper showed me that turning of tls
resolved this issue. but then again, there was no tls...
i would appr
On Sunday, February 23, 2020 3:26:07 PM EST Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Scott Kitterman skrev den 2020-02-23 21:03:
> > There is no hard limit. See RFC 7208 Section 3.4.
>
> sadly :(
>
> even ip4:0.0.0.0/0 is valid
>
> could pypolicyd-spf break rfc so only domains under 255 ipv4 is valid
> results
Scott Kitterman skrev den 2020-02-23 21:03:
There is no hard limit. See RFC 7208 Section 3.4.
sadly :(
even ip4:0.0.0.0/0 is valid
could pypolicyd-spf break rfc so only domains under 255 ipv4 is valid
results ?, imho its insane that its supported unlimited
Mohamed Lrhazi skrev den 2020-02-23 20:53:
Using addr...@spf.101.cuaemail.org, gmail also passes. The SPF for
this domain has 101 addresses.
https://dmarcian.com/spf-survey/?domain=spf.255.cuaemail.org
see Record flattening
On Sunday, February 23, 2020 2:53:28 PM EST Mohamed Lrhazi wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Sorry for a non-postfix specific question.
>
> I am running into an issue with a big SPF record I had been maintaining. I
> went ahead a broke it up using the include: mechanism, but am still trying
> to figure out
Hello all,
Sorry for a non-postfix specific question.
I am running into an issue with a big SPF record I had been maintaining. I
went ahead a broke it up using the include: mechanism, but am still trying
to figure out the limit I did hit.
For testing purposes, I send emails from this addr...@spf
14 matches
Mail list logo
