On 13. 12. 23 22:54, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Jiri Bourek via Postfix-users:
My response was quoting the message that mentions the patch changing
behaviour of PREPEND - message from 10 Dec 2023 19:04:55 -0500 (EST). I
now spotted the "With this, no change is needed to the Postfix S
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4srcnm0d3jzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
|> Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
|> <4sr8hc44p7zj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|>|Currently, Postfix does not send the Postfix-generated Received:
|>|header to Milters,
Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
> Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
> <4sr8hc44p7zj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
> |Currently, Postfix does not send the Postfix-generated Received:
> |header to Milters, because that is how Sendmail works, that is what
> ...
> |This information would imp
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4sr8hc44p7zj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Currently, Postfix does not send the Postfix-generated Received:
|header to Milters, because that is how Sendmail works, that is what
...
|This information would improve the Milter's analysis. Untrusted
...
|Th
Jiri Bourek via Postfix-users:
> My response was quoting the message that mentions the patch changing
> behaviour of PREPEND - message from 10 Dec 2023 19:04:55 -0500 (EST). I
> now spotted the "With this, no change is needed to the Postfix SMTP
> daemon" sentence in message from 12 Dec 2023 19:
Currently, Postfix does not send the Postfix-generated Received:
header to Milters, because that is how Sendmail works, that is what
Milters expect, and changing the behavior unilaterally would break
compatibility with a large installed base.
This information would improve the Milter's analysis.
On 13. 12. 23 19:41, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Jiri Bourek via Postfix-users:
Example for current behaviour:
Received-SPF: Pass *<-- only we could've add this*
Received: from some.server by this.server
With the new one:
Received: from some.server by this.server
Received-SPF: Pass
On 2023-12-13 at 13:06:36 UTC-0500 (Wed, 13 Dec 2023 19:06:36 +0100)
Jiri Bourek via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
> On 11. 12. 23 1:04, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
>>
>> Confirmed. A premiminary fix is below. This will prepend the
>> Received-SPF from the policy service after
Jiri Bourek via Postfix-users:
> Example for current behaviour:
>
> Received-SPF: Pass *<-- only we could've add this*
> Received: from some.server by this.server
>
> With the new one:
>
> Received: from some.server by this.server
> Received-SPF: Pass *<-- did scammer add it or did we?*
Once ag
On 11. 12. 23 1:04, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Confirmed. A premiminary fix is below. This will prepend the
Received-SPF from the policy service after the Postfix-generated
Received: header and before the received message.
With this fix, a Milter can replace a PREMENDed Received-SPF
lists--- via Postfix-users:
> I have a user with an 'old' printer/scanner who wants to scan/email scans
> from the home located device
>
> printer offers:
> machine email address:
> SMTP server:
> SMTP server port:
>
> send authentication: PoPb4SMTP/SMTP AUTH: Plain/Login/CRAM-MD5/Auto
If the pr
Dnia 13.12.2023 o godz. 09:15:52 Bill Cole via Postfix-users pisze:
>
> No AUTH offered. Which is fine, because one should not offer AUTH
> over an unencrypted session. However, your printer saw that and
> instead of using STARTTLS, it hung up. That's bad. It should have
> used STARTTLS to get a u
On 2023-12-13 at 04:27:24 UTC-0500 (Wed, 13 Dec 2023 20:27:24 +1100)
lists--- via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
I have a user with an 'old' printer/scanner who wants to scan/email
scans
from the home located device
printer offers:
machine email address:
SMTP server:
SMTP server port:
I have a user with an 'old' printer/scanner who wants to scan/email scans
from the home located device
printer offers:
machine email address:
SMTP server:
SMTP server port:
send authentication: PoPb4SMTP/SMTP AUTH: Plain/Login/CRAM-MD5/Auto
login name:
passwd:
tried 587 with each of the 4 AUTH
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users escribió el 13/12/2023 a las 1:59:
Carlos Velasco via Postfix-users:
Thus, the Postfix code that handles header update/delete requests
was still naively skipping the first header, making calls to delete
the prepended Received-SPF: header ineffective, and mis-dire
15 matches
Mail list logo
