[ Thread unhijacked ]
On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 01:16:59PM -0400, John Levine via Postfix-users wrote:
> We have a bunch of role addresses that we forward to the people in the role.
aliases:
owner-localuser: postmaster
localuser: mbox@provider.example
> If the messages have
On 15 Jul 2019, at 13:44, Phil Stracchino wrote:
>
> On 7/15/19 3:29 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
>> On 15 Jul 2019, at 14:02, Phil Stracchino wrote:
>>> And here's the log of the last failure:
>>
>> [...]
>>> Jul 15 13:49:11 minbar policyd-spf[25139]: Starting
>>> Jul 15 13:49:11 minbar policyd-spf[251
On 7/15/19 4:56 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2019, at 15:44, Phil Stracchino wrote:
>> The question that comes to mind here is, if one should not reject mail
>> based on SPF failures, then what is even the point of checking SPF?
>
> A test of SPF can have exactly one out of a fixed set of 7 p
On 15 Jul 2019, at 15:44, Phil Stracchino wrote:
On 7/15/19 3:29 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
On 15 Jul 2019, at 14:02, Phil Stracchino wrote:
And here's the log of the last failure:
[...]
Jul 15 13:49:11 minbar policyd-spf[25139]: Starting
Jul 15 13:49:11 minbar policyd-spf[25139]: Config: {'debug
On 7/15/19 4:08 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 7/15/2019 2:44 PM, Phil Stracchino wrote:
>>
>> The question that comes to mind here is, if one should not reject mail
>> based on SPF failures, then what is even the point of checking SPF?
>
> Please distinguish between "SPF check failed because this is
On 7/15/2019 2:44 PM, Phil Stracchino wrote:
On 7/15/19 3:29 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
On 15 Jul 2019, at 14:02, Phil Stracchino wrote:
And here's the log of the last failure:
[...]
Jul 15 13:49:11 minbar policyd-spf[25139]: Starting
Jul 15 13:49:11 minbar policyd-spf[25139]: Config: {'debugLevel
According to this site, websitewelcome has 10 lookups on its own:
https://emailstuff.org/spf/check
The websitewelcome spf record includes the google spf record, so
forevermetalroof.com shouldn't need the mx in their spf.
The emailstuff.org tool has an SPF minimizer that looks interesting. Bu
On 7/15/19 3:29 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2019, at 14:02, Phil Stracchino wrote:
>> And here's the log of the last failure:
>
> [...]
>> Jul 15 13:49:11 minbar policyd-spf[25139]: Starting
>> Jul 15 13:49:11 minbar policyd-spf[25139]: Config: {'debugLevel': 3,
>> 'HELO_reject': 'SPF_Not_Pas
On 7/15/19 3:12 PM, Fazzina, Angelo wrote:
> When you plug your domain [forevermetalroof.com] in here you see too many
> lookups explained better
Yeah, that's what I figured out and several others pointed out. Looks
like the problem is the company's mail hosting, and their IT guy is
working on
On 15 Jul 2019, at 14:02, Phil Stracchino wrote:
I have mail from one specific domain (handled by Google) being
rejected
by pypolicyd-spf because of an apparent DNS lookup problem — 'SPF
Permanent Error: Too many DNS lookups'
That should not cause rejection. It should be the equivalent of not
-us...@postfix.org On
Behalf Of Phil Stracchino
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 2:02 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: SPF failure
I have mail from one specific domain (handled by Google) being rejected
by pypolicyd-spf because of an apparent DNS lookup problem — 'SPF
Permanent Error: Too
I have mail from one specific domain (handled by Google) being rejected
by pypolicyd-spf because of an apparent DNS lookup problem — 'SPF
Permanent Error: Too many DNS lookups' — but it is not obvious to me
what the problem is, unless it's something to do with having five MX
forwarders to look up.
li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
>
> Peter wrote:
> > As a relatively simple example, I use amavisd-new and Spamassassin to
> > flag mail with a spam header. Then Dovecot LMTP with sieve looks for
> > this header and if it is present it delivers to the user's "Spam" folder.
>
> Well this is interestin
On 27/06/16 18:41, li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
> "As a relatively simple example, I use amavisd-new and Spamassassin
> to flag mail with a spam header. Then Dovecot LMTP with sieve looks
> for this header and if it is present it delivers to the user's "Spam"
> folder."
>
> Well this is interesting
From: ChipSent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 7:58 PMTo: li...@lazygranch.comReply To: jeffsch...@gmail.comCc: postfix-users@postfix.orgSubject: Re: DKIM/SPF failure to folder, not return to sender
"As a relatively simple example, I use amavisd-new and Spamassassin to
flag mail with a spam header. Then Dovecot LMTP with sieve looks for
this header and if it is present it delivers to the user's "Spam" folder."
Well this is interesting. I have a similar setup for postfix. With my desktop
em
On 27/06/16 15:50, Chip wrote:
> So to be clear SPF and DKIM milters have the ability to add headers,
The milter protocol does, and I believe that the vast majority of SPF
and DKIM milters available can do so.
> then the MDA can make a decision on *that* header
Correct, but you need to use a 3rd
So to be clear SPF and DKIM milters have the ability to add headers,
then the MDA can make a decision on *that* header - I don't want any
more processing based on headers, sender and recipient as the whole
shebang prior to the MDA was supposed to take care of the most critical
part - was it SPF
On 27/06/16 08:44, Chip wrote:
> John Doe receives email at john...@abc.com.
>
> He is ONLY to receive email that is fully DKIM and/or SPF compliant from
> anyone at the xyz.com company.
[Summary: the rest would go to another folder]
This is fairly simple to do, but does require some external co
From: ChipSent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 7:59 PMTo: li...@lazygranch.comReply To: jeffsch...@gmail.comCc: postfix-users@postfix.orgSubject: Re: DKIM/SPF failure to folder, not return to sender and other tricks
Ok this is good. But the project cannot use mail cli
Reply To: *jeffsch...@gmail.com
*Cc: *postfix-users@postfix.org
*Subject: *Re: DKIM/SPF failure to folder, not return to sender and
other tricks
Very interesting and thanks for sending.
Now if you look at the command line, reproduced below, is that a
command line calling a file that contains the mes
From: ChipSent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 7:25 PMTo: li...@lazygranch.comReply To: jeffsch...@gmail.comCc: postfix-users@postfix.orgSubject: Re: DKIM/SPF failure to folder, not ret
*Sent: *Sunday, June 26, 2016 6:28 PM
*To: *li...@lazygranch.com
*Reply To: *jeffsch...@gmail.com
*Cc: *postfix-users@postfix.org
*Subject: *Re: DKIM/SPF failure to folder, not return to sender and
other tricks
There is dkimverify and spfquery, two command line tools that you can
run against a me
tfix-users@postfix.orgSubject: Re: DKIM/SPF failure to folder, not return to sender and other tricks
There is dkimverify and spfquery, two command line tools that you
can run against a message in the first case and a domain with ip in
the second case.
Trivial to put i
SpamAssassin has a SPF hook.
https://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.1.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html#scoring_options
*From: *Jeffs Chips
*Sent: *Sunday, June 26, 2016 5:20 PM
*To: *li...@lazygranch.com
*Cc: *postfix-users@postfix.org
*Subject: *Re: DKIM/SPF failure to folder, not return to
From: Jeffs ChipsSent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 5:20 PMTo: li...@lazygranch.comCc: postfix-users@postfix.orgSubject: Re: DKIM/SPF failure to
KIM and SPF,
> the silence was deafening.
> Original Message
> From: Chip
> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 4:41 PM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Reply To: jeffsch...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: DKIM/SPF failure to folder, not return to sender and other
> tricks
>
> Thanks,
4:41 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Reply To: jeffsch...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: DKIM/SPF failure to folder, not return to sender and other tricks
Thanks,
So it just may be easier to deliver all messages to a folder then have a
cron job run some spf/dkim checking script against the emails.
On
Thanks,
So it just may be easier to deliver all messages to a folder then have a
cron job run some spf/dkim checking script against the emails.
On 06/26/2016 05:53 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
On 26 Jun 2016, at 16:44, Chip wrote:
I'm wondering if Postfix can do the following easily.
Nope, not *e
Bill Cole
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 2:53 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Reply To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: DKIM/SPF failure to folder, not return to sender and other tricks
On 26 Jun 2016, at 16:44, Chip wrote:
> I'm wondering if Postfix can do the following easily.
Nope,
On 26 Jun 2016, at 16:44, Chip wrote:
I'm wondering if Postfix can do the following easily.
Nope, not *easily*.
It's a real dog to get this setup in Exim.
Or Sendmail, or probably ANY MTA that isn't tightly integrated to robust
local delivery, mailstore, and mail access subsystems OR whic
I'm wondering if Postfix can do the following easily. It's a real dog
to get this setup in Exim.
Here is the scenario.
John Doe receives email at john...@abc.com.
He is ONLY to receive email that is fully DKIM and/or SPF compliant from
anyone at the xyz.com company.
Sometimes people send J
On 2015-06-09 12:45, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 10:57, M. Fioretti wrote:
On 2015-06-09 06:38, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
from the perspective of the recipient, your mail is originating
from '81.88.62.172', which isn't included in your SPF record.
Your SPF record dictates that it
On 09 Jun 2015, at 10:57, M. Fioretti wrote:
> On 2015-06-09 06:38, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
>
>> from the perspective of the recipient, your mail is originating
>> from '81.88.62.172', which isn't included in your SPF record.
>> Your SPF record dictates that it should be rejected, so they do.
>>
On 2015-06-09 06:38, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
from the perspective of the recipient, your mail is originating
from '81.88.62.172', which isn't included in your SPF record.
Your SPF record dictates that it should be rejected, so they do.
That's what the error message tells you.
ALL this had been
apparently
> hosted at register.it - server: mail.register.it, according to the MX
> records) so I would suggest talking to postmas...@register.it
> They have a misconfigured server that forwards mail in a incorrect way.
>
> -Ursprungligt meddelande- From: DTNX Postmaster
> Sen
ostfix users
Subject: Re: what is the reason for THIS spf failure?
On 08 Jun 2015, at 20:14, M. Fioretti wrote:
On 2015-06-08 20:06, M. Fioretti wrote:
On 2015-06-08 17:46, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
Have you followed the link in the error message, and read the
explanation?
Of course I have. But,
have to ask if YOU read my email.
>
> As confirmation of my earlier answer, please note the Received: and
> Receive-SPF headers of the
> rejected message, which do NOT report 81.88.62.172 as source, or spf
> failures... So THEY
> acknowledge I emailed from 213.179.193.33, TH
gt; reject because of spf failure???
> Can I be confused, or what?
81.88.62.172 is an IP address in the recipient's network. For
example, scott01.register.it = 81.88.49.168. It certainly looks
like the confusion is on their side.
Wietse
> >>>
> >>>
the Received: and
Receive-SPF headers of the
rejected message, which do NOT report 81.88.62.172 as source, or spf
failures... So THEY
acknowledge I emailed from 213.179.193.33, THEY say SPF-pass, then THEY
reject because of spf failure???
Can I be confused, or what?
The error returned from the
On 2015-06-08 17:46, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
Have you followed the link in the error message, and read the
explanation?
Of course I have. But, with all respect, it have to ask if YOU read my
email.
If I send email from the same computer, webmail etc.. I only get spf
failure
from that and
On 08 Jun 2015, at 18:03, M. Fioretti wrote:
> I had my SPF/Dkim setup all set, also thanks to help from this list..
> until 2/3 days ago. Since then, I have received 2/3 rejected messages,
> from unrelated servers, all very similar to the one below, from which
> I have only removed the subject a
Greetings,
I had my SPF/Dkim setup all set, also thanks to help from this list..
until 2/3 days ago. Since then, I have received 2/3 rejected messages,
from unrelated servers, all very similar to the one below, from which
I have only removed the subject and original body.
I sent that email 10 mi
On Wed, November 19, 2008 23:39, ??? ? wrote:
> In such a case you will be greylisting all hosts, not depending on SPF result,
> even if result will be PASS.
PREPEND change to greylist in spf policy
prepend is a accept that adds a header olso
> I'm using the following settings:
> s
> On Wed, November 19, 2008 19:44, Justin Piszcz wrote:
>
> > 13:32:39 p34 postfix/policy-spf[15114]: : Policy action=PREPEND
> > Received-SPF:
>
> change action= to greylist and have greylist class solves it without change
> any code in policy-spf
>
> smtpd_restriction_classes = greylist
> gre
On Wed, November 19, 2008 19:44, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> 13:32:39 p34 postfix/policy-spf[15114]: : Policy action=PREPEND Received-SPF:
change action= to greylist and have greylist class solves it without change
any code in policy-spf
smtpd_restriction_classes = greylist
greylist = check_policy_s
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:44:48 -0500 (EST) Justin Piszcz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Was curious if there were any daemons out there that currently did this,
or if
>I should just modify the main spf checking script that openspf.org
provides?
>
I think tumgreyspf will do this. Alternatively, you c
Was curious if there were any daemons out there that currently did this, or if
I should just modify the main spf checking script that openspf.org provides?
Nov 19 13:32:39 p34 postfix/policy-spf[15114]: : SPF SoftFail (Mechanism '~all'
matched): Envelope-from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nov 19 13:32:39
48 matches
Mail list logo
