Le 05/06/2024 à 15:58, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users a écrit :
Le 05/06/2024 à 14:01, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users a
écrit :
What I mean is: wildcard TXT (SPF) record for
*.single-wild.porcupine.org only applies to wildcarded hosts, not to
any other record explicitly defi
Le 05/06/2024 à 14:01, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users a écrit :
What I mean is: wildcard TXT (SPF) record for
*.single-wild.porcupine.org only applies to wildcarded hosts, not to
any other record explicitly defined in single-wild.porcupine.org
zone.
Thus, when A record for mail01-t1
Le 05/06/2024 à 14:01, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users a écrit :
Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users:
>- Create a wild-card SPF policy for *.raystedman.org that permits
>all your SMTP client IP addresses.
Sorry: wildcard in DNS only applied for non-existing names and since
the hos
Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users:
>- Create a wild-card SPF policy for *.raystedman.org that permits
>all your SMTP client IP addresses.
Sorry: wildcard in DNS only applied for non-existing names and since
the hostname already exists:
On 04.06.24 13:02, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
Someone asked what was being sent. The email is being sent to a
mailbox collector of bounces at the Gmail level. The email contains a
VERP address of the original sender. We perform automated bounce
processing for all email that make it to the bounce address at the
Gmail level. These bounces co
Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users:
> >- Create a wild-card SPF policy for *.raystedman.org that permits
> >all your SMTP client IP addresses.
>
> Sorry: wildcard in DNS only applied for non-existing names and since
> the hostname already exists:
Perhaps you are confusing wildcards with CN
Greg Sims via Postfix-users:
We had another DMARC Failure last night. The email ended up at the gmail level.
X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
spf=none (google.com: mail01-t122.raystedman.org does not
designate permitted sender hosts)
smtp.helo=mail01-t122.raystedman.o
Le 04/06/2024 à 17:02, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users a écrit :
Greg Sims via Postfix-users:
We had another DMARC Failure last night. The email ended up at the gmail level.
X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
spf=none (google.com: mail01-t122.raystedman.org does not
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-06-04 17:02:
- Create a wild-card SPF policy for *.raystedman.org that permits
all your SMTP client IP addresses.
just not make it random as a *
helo should be non shared aswell, but should at same time be on same
domain
i remember policyd v1
Greg Sims via Postfix-users:
> We had another DMARC Failure last night. The email ended up at the gmail
> level.
>
> X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
>
>spf=none (google.com: mail01-t122.raystedman.org does not
> designate permitted sender hosts)
> smtp.helo=mail01-t1
We had another DMARC Failure last night. The email ended up at the gmail level.
X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
spf=none (google.com: mail01-t122.raystedman.org does not
designate permitted sender hosts)
smtp.helo=mail01-t122.raystedman.org;
dmarc=fail (p=NONE s
OK. I found the email in the bounce mailbox at the gmail level. The
issue seems to be consistent with what we could see from the email
logs only. The SPF fails because the email is being sent from domain
mail01.raystedman.org. You tried (Wietse) for some time to control the
"from domain" for thi
Greg Sims via Postfix-users:
> On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 8:12?AM Greg Sims wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 6:49?AM Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> > wrote:
> >
> > > In recent experience with my personal porcupine.org email address,
> > > they not only want SPF or DKIM, they *also* want a
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 8:12 AM Greg Sims wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 6:49 AM Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> > In recent experience with my personal porcupine.org email address,
> > they not only want SPF or DKIM, they *also* want a DMARC policy
> > with p=quarantine or p=re
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 6:49 AM Wietse Venema via Postfix-users <
postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
> In recent experience with my personal porcupine.org email address,
> they not only want SPF or DKIM, they *also* want a DMARC policy
> with p=quarantine or p=reject.
We have run p=reject for year
Greg Sims via Postfix-users:
> > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 3:40?AM Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users <
> postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
>
> > You really should have posted "collate" output, which would have shown
> > the envelope sender address in the "qmgr active" log entry. Perhaps
> > the act
I do see the "qmgr active" active with the from=<>. I added
mail01.raystedman.org SPF to DNS as a result.
Thanks again, Greg
>
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
> On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 3:40 AM Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users <
postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
> You really should have posted "collate" output, which would have shown
> the envelope sender address in the "qmgr active" log entry. Perhaps
> the actual domain used did not have the expected
On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 3:40 AM Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users <
postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
>
> You really should have posted "collate" output, which would have shown
> the envelope sender address in the "qmgr active" log entry. Perhaps
> the actual domain used did not have the expected
On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 08:22:53PM -0500, Greg Sims via Postfix-users wrote:
> May 26 00:35:57 mail01.raystedman.org postfix/t124/smtp[39065]:
> 0A7D630F1C7C:
> to==cecytebc.edu...@devotion.raystedman.org>,
> relay=aspmx.l.google.com[142.251.2.26]:25,
> delay=0.52, delays=0/0/0.21/0.31, dsn=5.7.2
Greg Sims via Postfix-users:
> We found the following in our email log:
>
> May 26 00:35:57 mail01.raystedman.org postfix/t124/smtp[39065]:
> 0A7D630F1C7C: to==
> cecytebc.edu...@devotion.raystedman.org>,
> relay=aspmx.l.google.com[142.251.2.26]:25,
> delay=0.52, delays=0/0/0.21/0.31, dsn=5.7.26
21 matches
Mail list logo
