On 08.07.24 11:42, natan via Postfix-users wrote:
What you propose use ?
Maybe instead of not accepting such mail will better is change
score in SA ?
W dniu 15.07.2024 o 12:06, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users pisze:
This is a policy issue. You can choose your policy to be rejecting
W dniu 15.07.2024 o 12:06, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users pisze:
On 08.07.24 11:42, natan via Postfix-users wrote:
What you propose use ?
Maybe instead of not accepting such mail will better is change score
in SA ?
This is a policy issue. You can choose your policy to be rejecting
On 08.07.24 11:42, natan via Postfix-users wrote:
What you propose use ?
Maybe instead of not accepting such mail will better is change score in SA ?
This is a policy issue. You can choose your policy to be rejecting mail with
spf=fail, both spf=fail and spf=softfail, or reject any mail whe
Did you read the error message:
No valid SPF record for included domain: _spf.cyberfolks.pl:
include:_spf.cyberfolks.pl.
In fact, _spf.cyberfolks.pl does not have an SPF record. Either it needs to
have one published or you need to remove the include.
Scott K
On July 8, 2024 2:47:54 PM UTC, n
Hi
I try onother Permerror but I dont known why
Jul 8 14:28:29 MX postfix/smtpd[48372]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
s10b.cyber-folks.pl[193.17.184.42]: 550 5.7.24 : Recipient
address rejected: Message rejected due to: SPF Permanent Error: No valid
SPF record for included domain: _spf.cyberfol
Hi
What you propose use ?
Maybe instead of not accepting such mail will better is change score in SA ?
W dniu 8.07.2024 o 11:36, natan via Postfix-users pisze:
Hi
What value do you use in postfix-policyd-spf in PermError_reject ?
HELO_reject = Fail
Mail_From_reject = Fail
#update 20240706
#P
I am using the default value:
PermError_reject = True
But it totally depends by you.
On 2024-07-08 17:36, natan via Postfix-users wrote:
Hi
What value do you use in postfix-policyd-spf in PermError_reject ?
HELO_reject = Fail
Mail_From_reject = Fail
#update 20240706
#PermError_reject = False
natan via Postfix-users escribió el 27/06/2024 a las 15:48:
W dniu 27.06.2024 o 15:39, Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users pisze:
Hi Scott
Jun 27 15:39:06 MX policyd-spf[3729]: prepend Received-SPF: Permerror
(mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=200.28.23.150;
helo=200-28-23-150.baf.movistar.cl
On 27.06.24 15:30, natan via Postfix-users wrote:
I have a strange problem with SPF and I honestly don't know what to
pay attention to
What is a Permerror in SPF
In log i get:
Jun 27 15:09:11 MX policyd-spf[57158]: prepend Received-SPF: Permerror
(mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=84.205
W dniu 27.06.2024 o 15:48, natan via Postfix-users pisze:
W dniu 27.06.2024 o 15:39, Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users pisze:
On June 27, 2024 1:30:37 PM UTC, natan via
Postfix-users wrote:
Hi
I have a strange problem with SPF and I honestly don't know what to pay
attention to
What is a Per
W dniu 27.06.2024 o 15:39, Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users pisze:
On June 27, 2024 1:30:37 PM UTC, natan via
Postfix-users wrote:
Hi
I have a strange problem with SPF and I honestly don't know what to pay
attention to
What is a Permerror in SPF
In log i get:
Jun 27 15:09:11 MX policyd-sp
On June 27, 2024 1:30:37 PM UTC, natan via Postfix-users
wrote:
>Hi
>I have a strange problem with SPF and I honestly don't know what to pay
>attention to
>
>What is a Permerror in SPF
>In log i get:
>
>Jun 27 15:09:11 MX policyd-spf[57158]: prepend Received-SPF: Permerror
>(mailfrom) identit
Peter via Postfix-users:
> On 21/06/24 07:13, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Bounces are sent with the null envelope.from address which has no
> > domain. Therefore, SPF applies policy to a surrogate: the hostname
> > in the SMTP client's HELO/EHLO command (as if the envelope.from
> > a
On 21/06/24 23:10, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote:
Peter via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-06-21 08:45:
SPF/DKIM/DMARC Checklist for (IMO) the best chance of getting your
mail to be accepted:
1. HELO banner should pass SPF.
2. Envelope Sender should pass SPF.
3. Envelope Se
On 21/06/24 21:49, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote:
Dnia 21.06.2024 o godz. 18:45:15 Peter via Postfix-users pisze:
SPF/DKIM/DMARC Checklist for (IMO) the best chance of getting your
mail to be accepted:
1. HELO banner should pass SPF.
2. Envelope Sender should pass SPF.
3. Envelope
Peter via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-06-21 08:45:
SPF/DKIM/DMARC Checklist for (IMO) the best chance of getting your
mail to be accepted:
1. HELO banner should pass SPF.
2. Envelope Sender should pass SPF.
3. Envelope Sender domain should align with the From: header domain.
4. Message
Dnia 21.06.2024 o godz. 18:45:15 Peter via Postfix-users pisze:
> SPF/DKIM/DMARC Checklist for (IMO) the best chance of getting your
> mail to be accepted:
>
> 1. HELO banner should pass SPF.
>
> 2. Envelope Sender should pass SPF.
>
> 3. Envelope Sender domain should align with the From: hea
Peter via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-06-21 08:45:
On 21/06/24 07:13, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
SPF/DKIM/DMARC Checklist for (IMO) the best chance of getting your mail
to be accepted:
1. HELO banner should pass SPF.
2. Envelope Sender should pass SPF.
3. Envelope Sender do
On 21/06/24 07:13, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Bounces are sent with the null envelope.from address which has no
domain. Therefore, SPF applies policy to a surrogate: the hostname
in the SMTP client's HELO/EHLO command (as if the envelope.from
address was postmaster@helo-argument).
Th
Le 21/06/2024 à 00:13, John Levine a écrit :
It appears that Emmanuel Fusté via Postfix-users said:
In the general case (not null sender), HELO SPF validation does not
interfere with DMARC as DMARC only use the MAIL FROM identity.
There was historically a bug in some DMARC implementation witch
It appears that Emmanuel Fusté via Postfix-users said:
>In the general case (not null sender), HELO SPF validation does not
>interfere with DMARC as DMARC only use the MAIL FROM identity.
>There was historically a bug in some DMARC implementation witch evaluate
>whatever SPF identity check that
Le 20/06/2024 à 21:13, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users a écrit :
Bounces are sent with the null envelope.from address which has no
domain. Therefore, SPF applies policy to a surrogate: the hostname
in the SMTP client's HELO/EHLO command (as if the envelope.from
address was postmaster@helo-argumen
Bounces are sent with the null envelope.from address which has no
domain. Therefore, SPF applies policy to a surrogate: the hostname
in the SMTP client's HELO/EHLO command (as if the envelope.from
address was postmaster@helo-argument).
This helo-argument is by default the value of the Postfix myho
So there's a confusion between the hostname of the mailer and the
doamin to be used for the SPF check. Is anybody else seeing this ?
Yes, I had to recently add an "a:" record to an SPF (for the sending hostname)
as I was seeing some of these I think.
Im confused by the language being used.
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024, 2:01 pm Emmanuel Seyman via Postfix-users, <
postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
>
> So there's a confusion between the hostname of the mailer and the
> doamin to be used for the SPF check. Is anybody else seeing this ?
>
Yes, I had to recently add an "a:" record to an SPF (for
On 2024-06-20 at 09:00:35 UTC-0400 (Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:00:35 +0200)
Emmanuel Seyman via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
Hello, all.
Since yesterday, I've started seeing email from my servers getting
rejected due to SPF problems.
550 5.7.23 : Sender address rejected: Message
rejected
On June 9, 2024 12:17:38 PM UTC, Jeff Peng via Postfix-users
wrote:
>Hello
>
>If I have a mx server: mx.host.com whose ip is 1.2.3.4.
>
>The domain.com who use this mx server may have the following SPF.
>
>v=spf1 mx ~all
>v=spf1 ip4:1.2.3.4 ~all
>v=spf1 a:mx.host.com ~all
>v=spf1 mx:domain.com
On 2023-06-12 at 04:19:12 UTC-0400 (Mon, 12 Jun 2023 20:19:12 +1200)
Peter via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
> Technically it's an invalid MX record because MX records must point to a
> hostname, not an IP address.
>
> They are probably trying (but failing) to implement a null MX record
Technically it's an invalid MX record because MX records must point to a
hostname, not an IP address.
They are probably trying (but failing) to implement a null MX record:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7505
Peter
On 12/06/23 19:50, wesley--- via Postfix-users wrote:
Note there is also
I saw some domains have MX pointing to 127.0.0.1. what does this mean?
This will tell the sender of the email to connect to 127.0.0.1 which is itself.
It will send the mail program chasing its own tail.
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@
Note there is also RFC 7505 "Null MX" where you simply add "IN MX 0 ." to
any DNS name you wish not to send or accept e-mail. (this is designed to
work around implicie MX records when A record is present).
On 12.06.23 07:50, wesley--- via Postfix-users wrote:
I saw some domains have MX pointing
Dnia 10.06.2023 o godz. 17:33:06 Gerd Hoerst via Postfix-users pisze:
my entry e.g.
600 IN TXT "v=spf1 a mx -all"
that mean all servers listet in MX enrties of my domain are allowed
to send emails from my domain
So if you receive an email from my domain which are not sent from
on
Dnia 10.06.2023 o godz. 17:33:06 Gerd Hoerst via Postfix-users pisze:
> my entry e.g.
>
> 600 IN TXT "v=spf1 a mx -all"
>
> that mean all servers listet in MX enrties of my domain are allowed
> to send emails from my domain
>
> So if you receive an email from my domain which are no
Hi !
The dns entry provides info from which mailservers the receiptient
should only accpet email from entire domain... whta the receiptiten is
doing with that information is up to your settings in postfix
my entry e.g.
600 IN TXT "v=spf1 a mx -all"
that mean all servers listet in
wesley--- via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-06-09 02:17:
Hello,
for this spf setting,
bar.org. 3600 IN TXT "v=spf1 -all"
no ip addresses were provided.
does it mean all IP are passed, or no IP can pass?
no ip will pass
essentially all mails is rejected from that domain if recipient enforc
Jaroslaw Rafa:
> Dnia 12.04.2023 o godz. 15:43:07 Fourhundred Thecat via Postfix-users pisze:
>> OK, I see.
>> So should the client (mail.example.com) then have it's own SPF record,
>> in addition to the domain itself (example.com) ?
>
> If you plan to send mail with senders addresses as
> someth.
Dnia 12.04.2023 o godz. 15:43:07 Fourhundred Thecat via Postfix-users pisze:
> OK, I see.
> So should the client (mail.example.com) then have it's own SPF record,
> in addition to the domain itself (example.com) ?
If you plan to send mail with senders addresses as
someth...@mail.example.com, then
On 2023-04-12 at 06:41:02 UTC-0400 (Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:41:02 +0200)
Fourhundred Thecat via Postfix-users <400the...@gmx.ch>
is rumored to have said:
Hello,
I have domain mydomain.com, with mx record:
$ host -t mx mydomain.com
mail.mydomain.com
and I have SPF record on my domain:
host
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote in
|fantomas.fantomas.sk descriptive text "v=spf1 a -all"
On April 12, 2023 2:00:01 PM UTC, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users
wrote:
Interesting this still works for you. I had to change to ~all
because some behind-alias-expansion-and-forward collocutor
de-fact
On April 12, 2023 2:00:01 PM UTC, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users
wrote:
>Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote in
> :
> |On 12.04.23 12:41, Fourhundred Thecat via Postfix-users wrote:
> ...
> |>Does it mean that I should either:
> |>
> |> 1) create SPF record for mail.mydomain.com
> ...
> |I would
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote in
:
|On 12.04.23 12:41, Fourhundred Thecat via Postfix-users wrote:
...
|>Does it mean that I should either:
|>
|> 1) create SPF record for mail.mydomain.com
...
|I would do the first:
|
|fantomas.fantomas.sk descriptive text "v=spf1 a -all"
Interesting thi
Fourhundred Thecat via Postfix-users:
> > On 2023-04-12 15:30, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Fourhundred Thecat via Postfix-users:
> >> > On 2023-04-12 14:48, Byung-Hee HWANG via Postfix-users wrote:
> >
> > The smtp_helo_name used in the Postfix SMTP client should resolve to the
>
> On 2023-04-12 15:30, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Fourhundred Thecat via Postfix-users:
> On 2023-04-12 14:48, Byung-Hee HWANG via Postfix-users wrote:
The smtp_helo_name used in the Postfix SMTP client should resolve to the
client IP address that is seen by a remote SMTP server.
Fourhundred Thecat via Postfix-users:
> > On 2023-04-12 14:48, Byung-Hee HWANG via Postfix-users wrote:
> >>2) change smtp_helo_name to
> >>
> >> smtp_helo_name = $mydomain
> >
> > It is very strange, i think.
>
> what do you mean?
> is it strange to use example.com, instead of mail.exam
> On 2023-04-12 14:48, Byung-Hee HWANG via Postfix-users wrote:
2) change smtp_helo_name to
smtp_helo_name = $mydomain
It is very strange, i think.
what do you mean?
is it strange to use example.com, instead of mail.example.com as
smtp_helo_name, when the smtp client is actually mail
> 2) change smtp_helo_name to
>
> smtp_helo_name = $mydomain
It is very strange, i think.
Sincerely,
--
^고맙습니다 _地平天成_ 감사합니다_^))//
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@pos
On 12.04.23 12:41, Fourhundred Thecat via Postfix-users wrote:
I have domain mydomain.com, with mx record:
Use example.com unless you are real owner of mydomain.com
I have no SPF record on mail.mydomain.com itself.
Now, when I check my email score on mail-tester.com, it says:
SPF_HELO_NONE
47 matches
Mail list logo
