Hi,
I'm using python-policyd-spf with postfix as a check_policy_service and
having some trouble with domains very broadly being whitelisted. My policy
is to reject on mailfrom fail. However, we have few domains that need to
be whitelisted, like mycuservices.com, because they are sending fr
srvcomm[192.168.1.170]: 451
>4.3.5 : Recipient address rejected: Server configuration problem; from= to=
>proto=ESMTP helo=
>2022-10-31 08:59:37
>postfix/smtpd[6632]: warning: problem talking to server private/policyd-spf:
>Connection reset by peer
>2022-10-31 08:59:37
>postfix
problem; from= to= proto=ESMTP helo=
2022-10-31 08:59:37
postfix/smtpd[6632]: warning: problem talking to server
private/policyd-spf: Connection reset by peer
2022-10-31 08:59:37
postfix/smtpd[6632]: warning: premature end-of-input on
private/policyd-spf while reading input attribute name
2022-10-31
or
> >skip_addresses list in my policyd-spf.conf file. How does it determine
> when
> >to skip SPF
> >
> >May 13 08:11:11 xavier policyd-spf[2230289]: prepend X-Comment: SPF
> skipped
> >for whitelisted relay domain - client-ip=54.240.14.218; helo=
> >a14-218.s
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org <> On Behalf Of Matus UHLAR - fantomas
perhaps a but I don't see
On 15.05.22 14:21, Dino Edwards wrote:
So you agree, it should be passing but it's not for some reason.
it was supposed to be a "bug I don't see".
can you i
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org <> On Behalf Of Matus UHLAR - fantomas
>perhaps a but I don't see
So you agree, it should be passing but it's not for some reason.
On 13.05.22 12:40, Dino Edwards wrote:
NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
smtp15-ia5-sp1.mta.salesforce.com[13.110.78.238]: 550 5.7.23 :
Recipient address rejected: Message rejected due to: SPF fail - not
authorized. Please see http://www.openspf.net/Why?s=mfrom;id=oemcustomerc...@acuitybrands.com;ip=1
On 5/13/2022 9:41 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
perhaps you can post logs? local part of mail address may be censored...
Sure.
NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
smtp15-ia5-sp1.mta.salesforce.com[13.110.78.238]: 550 5.7.23 : Recipient
address rejected: Message rejected due to: SPF fail - not
On 12.05.22 21:03, Dino Edwards wrote:
Not sure if this is the right place to post the question concerning
postfix-policyd-spf-python but I can't seem to find any working links for
the openspf project.
Our postfix-policyd-spf-python server recently rejected an e-mail from a
sender tha
On May 13, 2022 12:14:38 PM UTC, Alex wrote:
>> >> Not sure if this is the right place to post the question concerning
>> >> postfix-policyd-spf-python but I can't seem to find any working links
>> >> for the openspf project.
>> >
> >> Not sure if this is the right place to post the question concerning
> >> postfix-policyd-spf-python but I can't seem to find any working links
> >> for the openspf project.
> >>
> >
> >You should start here,
> >
> > https://la
On May 12, 2022 9:12:44 PM UTC, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>On Thu, 2022-05-12 at 21:03 +, Dino Edwards wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Not sure if this is the right place to post the question concerning
>> postfix-policyd-spf-python but I can't seem to find any working
On May 12, 2022 9:03:32 PM UTC, Dino Edwards
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Not sure if this is the right place to post the question concerning
>postfix-policyd-spf-python but I can't seem to find any working links for the
>openspf project.
>
>Our postfix-policyd-spf-python ser
On Thu, 2022-05-12 at 21:03 +, Dino Edwards wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Not sure if this is the right place to post the question concerning
> postfix-policyd-spf-python but I can't seem to find any working links
> for the openspf project.
>
You should start here,
https://l
Hi,
Not sure if this is the right place to post the question concerning
postfix-policyd-spf-python but I can't seem to find any working links for the
openspf project.
Our postfix-policyd-spf-python server recently rejected an e-mail from a sender
that was using SPF macros. I tried to fin
On 2021-05-12 21:27, Noel Jones wrote:
Oh, and remove any permit_sasl_authenticated from the entries in
main.cf - assuming that no authenticated users should be using port
25.
and make sure main.cf does not have smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes
common mistakes
On 5/12/2021 2:21 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 5/12/2021 2:11 PM, David Mehler wrote:
Hello,
Thanks. Here's my master.cf submission entry:
submission inet n - n - - smtpd
-o syslog_name=postfix/submission
-o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt
-o smtpd_sasl_aut
On 5/12/2021 2:11 PM, David Mehler wrote:
Hello,
Thanks. Here's my master.cf submission entry:
submission inet n - n - - smtpd
-o syslog_name=postfix/submission
-o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt
-o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes
-o smtpd_client_restrict
Hello,
Thanks. Here's my master.cf submission entry:
submission inet n - n - - smtpd
-o syslog_name=postfix/submission
-o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt
-o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes
-o smtpd_client_restrictions=permit_sasl_authenticated,reject
-o milte
On 5/12/2021 12:26 PM, David Mehler wrote:
Hello,
I'm running Postfix 3.6, I just upgraded. I do not know if this issue
occurred because of the upgrade or prior to it as I hadn't sent any
mail through this account lately.
I'm having an issue with spf, error log below, if I comment out check
p
Hello,
I'm running Postfix 3.6, I just upgraded. I do not know if this issue
occurred because of the upgrade or prior to it as I hadn't sent any
mail through this account lately.
I'm having an issue with spf, error log below, if I comment out check
policy for spf under recipient_restrictions thin
IMO. All I want
the spf test for is as input to the dmarc test. If using policyd-spf,
all that is wanted is the header that will then be read by opendmarc.
>
> Reading some chatter on the opendmarc forum, they suggested
> HEADER_Type = AR as you have done, but I don't understand
t;> wrote:
> >> > I've installed the opendmarc milter. I'm not rejecting mail from
> >> > it at the moment. I've noticed that if I send myself a message,
> >> > the policyd-spf milter isn't run. That in turn causes mail I send
> >>
it
>> > at the moment. I've noticed that if I send myself a message, the
>> > policyd-spf milter isn't run. That in turn causes mail I send
>> > myself to fail in opendmarc. Any ideas?
>> >
>> > The various email verifiers do show that my
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:50:18 +
Dominic Raferd wrote:
> On 30 January 2018 at 10:11, li...@lazygranch.com
> wrote:
> > I've installed the opendmarc milter. I'm not rejecting mail from it
> > at the moment. I've noticed that if I send myself a message, the
On 30 January 2018 at 10:11, li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
> I've installed the opendmarc milter. I'm not rejecting mail from it at
> the moment. I've noticed that if I send myself a message, the
> policyd-spf milter isn't run. That in turn causes mail I send mysel
spf checker cant fail here
in port 465 / 587 do not accept useers that does not sasl auth, problem
solved
in opendmarc skip sasl auth users
in policyd-spf skip localhost ip, and maybe aswell mynetworks in postfix
I've installed the opendmarc milter. I'm not rejecting mail from it at
the moment. I've noticed that if I send myself a message, the
policyd-spf milter isn't run. That in turn causes mail I send myself to
fail in opendmarc. Any ideas?
The various email verifiers do show that
On December 25, 2017 10:25:42 PM EST, "li...@lazygranch.com"
wrote:
>I figured I would middle post, so skip down a bit.
>
>On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 11:56:02 -0800
>Gao wrote:
>
>> I quickly checked my policyd-spf setting after read your email. I
>> noticed tha
I figured I would middle post, so skip down a bit.
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 11:56:02 -0800
Gao wrote:
> I quickly checked my policyd-spf setting after read your email. I
> noticed that the policyd-spf in my system is not running as a service.
>
> I guess you are using debian. I am u
I quickly checked my policyd-spf setting after read your email. I
noticed that the policyd-spf in my system is not running as a service.
I guess you are using debian. I am using CentOS7 and I installed
pypolicyd-spf from EPEL. So is there a big advantage to running it as a
daemon service? How
There are many "problem solving pages" on the interwebs that have wrong
information on setting up policyd-spf. The key to make sure you use
consistent names in both main.cf and master.cf. Yeah, I know, I'm
preaching to the choir, but hopefully the next person with a set up
pro
Am 18.03.2017 um 13:42 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
On March 18, 2017 6:13:15 AM EDT, Alex JOST wrote:
Am 17.03.2017 um 22:38 schrieb James B. Byrne:
The host system runs under CentOS-6. Other than Postfix itself all
the packages on this system are either from CentOS or EPEL. Python
was last upd
On March 18, 2017 6:13:15 AM EDT, Alex JOST wrote:
>Am 17.03.2017 um 22:38 schrieb James B. Byrne:
>> The host system runs under CentOS-6. Other than Postfix itself all
>> the packages on this system are either from CentOS or EPEL. Python
>> was last updated in September 2016. pypolicd-spf wa
Am 17.03.2017 um 22:38 schrieb James B. Byrne:
The host system runs under CentOS-6. Other than Postfix itself all
the packages on this system are either from CentOS or EPEL. Python
was last updated in September 2016. pypolicd-spf was last updated
January 2017. These problems only evidenced th
On Fri, March 17, 2017 12:57, Thomas Leuxner wrote:
> * James B. Byrne 2017.03.17 17:44:
>
>> Mar 17 12:31:22 inet08 postfix/spawn[14598]: warning: command
>> /usr/libexec/postfix/policyd-spf exit status 1
>
> It is spawned per mail in my configuration:
>
> $ p
:16:58 inet08 postfix-p25/smtpd[14495]: connect from
>>russian-caravan.cloud9.net[168.100.1.4]
>>Mar 17 12:16:59 inet08 postfix-p25/smtpd[14529]: warning: problem
>>talking to server private/policyd-spf: Connection timed out
>
> You didn't say what version of the
68.100.1.4]
>Mar 17 12:16:59 inet08 postfix-p25/smtpd[14529]: warning: problem
>talking to server private/policyd-spf: Connection timed out
You didn't say what version of the policy server you are running. There was a
design issue that caused it to make multiple, sequential lookups of t
gt; russian-caravan.cloud9.net[168.100.1.4]
>>> Mar 17 12:16:59 inet08 postfix-p25/smtpd[14529]: warning: problem
>>> talking to server private/policyd-spf: Connection timed out
>
> It times out after 1 second. That seems very short to me, even for
> UNIX-domain.
>
> Wietse
>
different process numbers above.
-- Noel Jones
postfix-p25/smtpd[14529]: warning: problem
> > talking to server private/policyd-spf: Connection timed out
It times out after 1 second. That seems very short to me, even for
UNIX-domain.
Wietse
> On Mar 17, 2017, at 12:20 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> I have just noticed this error. I suspect this points to the root of
> our problems.
Not the cause, but a related symptom...
> What does it mean?
DNS lookups in policyd-spf are sufficient slow to not keep up with
d
* James B. Byrne 2017.03.17 17:44:
> Mar 17 12:31:22 inet08 postfix/spawn[14598]: warning: command
> /usr/libexec/postfix/policyd-spf exit status 1
It is spawned per mail in my configuration:
$ postconf -nf | grep -A1 private/policyd
check_policy_service { unix:private/policyd-spf, t
I have also seen this:
Mar 17 12:31:22 inet08 postfix/spawn[14598]: warning: command
/usr/libexec/postfix/policyd-spf exit status 1
However, these message only began to appear yesterday evening. This
is the first occurrence found in logs going back to February 12:
var/log/maillog:Mar 16 17:15
* James B. Byrne 2017.03.17 17:20:
> Mar 17 12:16:58 inet08 postfix-p25/smtpd[14495]: connect from
> russian-caravan.cloud9.net[168.100.1.4]
> Mar 17 12:16:59 inet08 postfix-p25/smtpd[14529]: warning: problem
> talking to server private/policyd-spf: Connection timed out
It mean
private/policyd-spf: Connection timed out
--
*** e-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel ***
Do NOT transmit sensitive data via e-Mail
Do NOT open attachments nor follow links sent by e-Mail
James B. Byrnemailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Lim
> On Mar 17, 2017, at 12:08 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> Mar 17 11:39:47 inet08 policyd-spf[13505]: Temperror; identity=helo;
> client-ip=69.89.30.42; helo=gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com;
> envelope-from=p...@thecargosolutionscanada.com;
> receiver=b...@harte-lyne.ca
>
set the spf
timeout higher than 20 seconds but I suspect that something else is at
work here.
This Temperror is also affecting these sites and many more:
Mar 17 11:39:47 inet08 policyd-spf[13505]: Temperror; identity=helo;
client-ip=69.89.30.42; helo=gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com;
envelope-fro
> On Mar 17, 2017, at 11:31 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> mohawkglobalta.com. 1476IN TXT "v=spf1
> include:spf.protection.outlook.com ip4:208.33.203.70/31 -all"
Don't forget the lookups needed to process the "include:" clause, and the fact
that DNS observations vary with time
-incidentally, begun to reject mail from many sites
due to policyd-spf DNS timeout errors similar to the following:
Mar 17 10:57:58 inet08 policyd-spf[12275]: Temperror; identity=helo;
client-ip=208.33.203.70; helo=mgmx.mohawkglobal.com;
envelope-from=usern...@mohawkglobalta.com;
receiver=usern...@harte
Original Message
From: Christian Kivalo
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 1:12 AM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Policyd-spf and RBL white listing
On 2016-04-19 08:52, li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
> From what I can tell, if you whitelist a domain, the policyd-spf check
> is skipped. Now I
On 2016-04-19 08:52, li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
From what I can tell, if you whitelist a domain, the policyd-spf check
is skipped. Now I white listed domains to stop the RBL from blocking
them, but it would be nice to see if SPF passes.
Am I right about the SPF being skipped?
While I'm
>From what I can tell, if you whitelist a domain, the policyd-spf check is skipped. Now I white listed domains to stop the RBL from blocking them, but it would be nice to see if SPF passes. Am I right about the SPF being skipped? While I'm at it, can you whitelist specific users at a doma
ur problem is fixed.
>>
>> Use postfix-policyd-spf-perl
>> Not postfix-policyd-spf-python
>>
>> Both work the same, but the perl version works fine with ipv6 on my server.
> Both work fine with IPv6 with as long as their dependencies are correct. The
> Perl imple
On Friday, February 05, 2016 11:09:03 AM L.P.H. van Belle wrote:
> Switch to the perl version of this and your problem is fixed.
>
> Use postfix-policyd-spf-perl
> Not postfix-policyd-spf-python
>
> Both work the same, but the perl version works fine with ipv6 on my server.
B
Switch to the perl version of this and your problem is fixed.
Use postfix-policyd-spf-perl
Not postfix-policyd-spf-python
Both work the same, but the perl version works fine with ipv6 on my server.
Greetz,
Louis
> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: t...@whyscream.net [mailto
an wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 04, 2016 04:19:54 PM Bill Cole wrote:
>>> On 4 Feb 2016, at 15:52, Danny Horne wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I am getting the following error on just one email address from
>>>> policyd-spf, called from P
help
On 04/02/2016 9:34 pm, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, February 04, 2016 04:19:54 PM Bill Cole wrote:
>> On 4 Feb 2016, at 15:52, Danny Horne wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I am getting the following error on just one email address from
>>> polic
On Thursday, February 04, 2016 04:19:54 PM Bill Cole wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2016, at 15:52, Danny Horne wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am getting the following error on just one email address from
> > policyd-spf, called from Postfix. No other email address has caused
> &g
On 4 Feb 2016, at 15:52, Danny Horne wrote:
Hi all,
I am getting the following error on just one email address from
policyd-spf, called from Postfix. No other email address has caused
me
problems (as far as I'm aware) and I had to completely disable
policyd-spf in Postfix to allow the
Hi all,
I am getting the following error on just one email address from
policyd-spf, called from Postfix. No other email address has caused me
problems (as far as I'm aware) and I had to completely disable
policyd-spf in Postfix to allow the email through. Can anyone decipher
what the pr
On Wednesday, May 06, 2015 02:12:04 PM Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Scott Kitterman said:
> > Great. Feel free to throw RFC 7208 Section 3.4 (Record Size) at them.
> > The
> > SHOULD fit in a UDP packet is there for a reason.
>
> I see your RFC and raise you RFC 6891. "[f]it in a UDP
Once upon a time, Scott Kitterman said:
> Great. Feel free to throw RFC 7208 Section 3.4 (Record Size) at them. The
> SHOULD fit in a UDP packet is there for a reason.
I see your RFC and raise you RFC 6891. "[f]it in a UDP packet" does not
mean 512 bytes.
--
Chris Adams
On Wed, 06 May 2015 13:59:44 -0400, Scott Kitterman stated:
> Great. Feel free to throw RFC 7208 Section 3.4 (Record Size) at them. The
> SHOULD fit in a UDP packet is there for a reason.
SHOULD ≠ MUST
--
Jerry
On Wednesday, May 06, 2015 05:17:12 PM Tobi wrote:
> @Scott
>
> thanks for putting me into the right direction :-)
> The answer for spf1.amazon.com TXT is indeed too big for UDP. So the
> query was retried in TCP mode.
> But the stupid admin (aka myself) forgot that he disabled tcp on the
> mailse
2015 09:45, Tobi wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi list
I know it's technically not a postfix issue :-) But maybe someone else
here on this list has the same problem.
I'm using Postfix with postfix-policyd-spf-perl About 4 or 5 days ago
I started to get erro
On Wed, May 6, 2015 10:11, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 06, 2015 09:58:57 AM James B. Byrne wrote:
>>
>> Amazon has screwed up their spf records. A DNS host can have only
>> ONE spf TXT RR and that must not contain or recursively resolve to
>> more than TEN tags.
>
> No. That's not
e
> > here on this list has the same problem.
> > I'm using Postfix with postfix-policyd-spf-perl About 4 or 5 days ago
> > I started to get error messages from postfix for mails from Amazon.
> > The log shows
> >
> > <<
> > May 6 15:33:12 ma
On Wed, May 6, 2015 09:45, Tobi wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Hi list
>
> I know it's technically not a postfix issue :-) But maybe someone else
> here on this list has the same problem.
> I'm using Postfix with postfix-policyd-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi list
I know it's technically not a postfix issue :-) But maybe someone else
here on this list has the same problem.
I'm using Postfix with postfix-policyd-spf-perl About 4 or 5 days ago
I started to get error messages from postfix for
On Thursday, March 05, 2015 04:57:14 PM @lbutlr wrote:
> Mar 5 14:03:26 mail postfix/spawn[57894]: warning:
> /usr/local/bin/policyd-spf: process id 58877: command time limit exceeded
> Mar 5 14:32:21 mail postfix/spawn[57894]: warning:
> /usr/local/bin/policyd-spf: process id 60
Mar 5 14:03:26 mail postfix/spawn[57894]: warning: /usr/local/bin/policyd-spf:
process id 58877: command time limit exceeded
Mar 5 14:32:21 mail postfix/spawn[57894]: warning: /usr/local/bin/policyd-spf:
process id 60423: command time limit exceeded
Mar 5 15:13:00 mail postfix/spawn[62387
Jack:
> > Does the error go away when you turn off selinux/apparmor/etc.?
>
> We are not running any of those applications.
FYI, These things run in the kernel, and they have a habit of
breaking system calls such as "open" and "connect".
Wietse
> Subject: Re: Getting some errors with policyd-spf-perl
>
> Jack:
> > Hello All,
> >
> > I'm seeing a lot of these errors:
> >
> > 10:07:49 houston postfix/smtpd[9818]: warning: problem talking to
> > server
> > private/policy: Connection t
Jack:
> Hello All,
>
> I'm seeing a lot of these errors:
>
> 10:07:49 houston postfix/smtpd[9818]: warning: problem talking to server
> private/policy: Connection timed out
>
> I verified that policyd-spf-perl is the current version, it matched the
> current downlo
Hello All,
I'm seeing a lot of these errors:
10:07:49 houston postfix/smtpd[9818]: warning: problem talking to server
private/policy: Connection timed out
I verified that policyd-spf-perl is the current version, it matched the
current download so there is no corruption etc.
M
On 08/07/2010 04:35 AM, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
> patch policyd-spf (0.8.0) to support rejection of no SPF record.
rejection based on SPF, this is a frightening idea.
--
Udo Rader, CTO
http://www.bestsolution.at
http://riaschissl.blogspot.com
On Friday, August 06, 2010 10:35:45 pm junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
> patch policyd-spf (0.8.0) to support rejection of no SPF record.
This is off topic for postfix-users. Please file a bug with the patch and we
can
discuss it in an appropriate venue:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/pypoli
/lib/postfix-policyd-spf-perl: No such file or directory
You have a bad pathname in the first line of the script file,
You are right. I had to adjust the perl path.
Thanks a lot!
Dirk
Dirk H. Schulz:
> Hi folks,
>
> I am running postfix mail gateways on several UNIXes, and they have the
> same or similar configurations.
>
> On my NetBSD gateway I get lots of these errors in the mail log:
> > spawn[18506]: fatal: spawn_comand: execvp
> > /usr
Hi folks,
I am running postfix mail gateways on several UNIXes, and they have the
same or similar configurations.
On my NetBSD gateway I get lots of these errors in the mail log:
spawn[18506]: fatal: spawn_comand: execvp
/usr/local/lib/postfix-policyd-spf-perl: No such file or directory
LuKreme wrote:
On 21-Aug-2008, at 11:26, mouss wrote:
Erm... at least that was in postfix22, not sure if it's in 2.5.x
That's the third-party spf patch. It's still available in the ports.
I don't see it. must be an old ports tree?
# cd /usr/ports/mail/postfix; make config
On 21-Aug-2008, at 11:26, mouss wrote:
Erm... at least that was in postfix22, not sure if it's in 2.5.x
That's the third-party spf patch. It's still available in the ports.
I don't see it. must be an old ports tree?
# cd /usr/ports/mail/postfix; make config
mouss wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
On 20-Aug-2008, at 09:42, mouss wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
main.cf Added
check_policy_service unix:private/policy
(this is
Noel Jones wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
On 20-Aug-2008, at 09:42, mouss wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
main.cf Added
check_policy_service unix:private/policy
(this is immediately
LuKreme wrote:
On 20-Aug-2008, at 09:42, mouss wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
main.cf Added
check_policy_service unix:private/policy
(this is immediately after
On Wednesday 20 August 2008 22:27, LuKreme wrote:
> On 20-Aug-2008, at 09:42, mouss wrote:
> > LuKreme wrote:
> >> I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
> >> portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
> >> mai
On 20-Aug-2008, at 09:42, mouss wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
main.cf Added
check_policy_service unix:private/policy
(this is immediately after reject_unauth_destination
On Wednesday 20 August 2008 11:30, LuKreme wrote:
> I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
> portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
>
> main.cf Added
> check_policy_service unix:private/policy
>
> (this
LuKreme wrote:
I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
main.cf Added
check_policy_service unix:private/policy
(this is immediately after reject_unauth_destination)
master.cf Added
policy unix
LuKreme wrote:
I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
main.cf Added
check_policy_service unix:private/policy
(this is immediately after reject_unauth_destination)
master.cf Added
policy unix
I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
main.cf Added
check_policy_service unix:private/policy
(this is immediately after reject_unauth_destination)
master.cf Added
policy unix - n n
91 matches
Mail list logo
