In my system I have 10 users. Each user has his own upstream account on
the ISP.
I use postfix + dovecot + fetchmail as a local mail server, but the real
sending is done by my ISP. I only forward local mails and the rest goes
out by the ISP.
When I authenticate the SMTP connection, my ISP wi
> I don't block based on country but I do add some weighting in Spamassassin
> for [...]
Absolutely i agree with you Dominic, thanks^^^
Sincerely,
--
^고맙습니다 _地平天成_ 감사합니다_^))//
Hello Jeffrey,
> I don’t get the logic of this statement. [...]
There are my several cousin brothers, friends over the world. So i can't
block any regions. The word money is not money in the statement.
Sincerely,
--
^고맙습니다 _地平天成_ 감사합니다_^))//
> On 24 Nov 2019, at 03:42, Gianni Angelozzi wrote:
>
> In my system I have 10 users. Each user has his own upstream account on the
> ISP.
If you mentioned that before, I missed it.
> When I authenticate the SMTP connection, my ISP will only allow that user to
> send the mail. Like, if I u
> Or in short: DMARC intentionally breaks every mailinglist and every
> mail-forwarding. So, if a mail-provider uses a strict DMARC-policy,
> it effectively says: "Our mail-addresses may not be used for
> mailinglists."
this message (i am replying to) from you on this mailing list is not
broken
On 11/24/19 3:12 PM, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>> Or in short: DMARC intentionally breaks every mailinglist and every
>> mail-forwarding. So, if a mail-provider uses a strict DMARC-policy,
>> it effectively says: "Our mail-addresses may not be used for
>> mailinglists."
> this message (i am replying t
Am Freitag, 22. November 2019, 23:08:39 CET schrieb Ralph Seichter:
> * Lars Kollstedt:
> > is there a clean way to optionally present a client certificate to a
> > Postfix MX [...]
>
> I hope I don't misinterpret your question here.
[...]
> However, I don't see you using relay_clientcerts=/path/
Is there a simpler way to do this (since bzcat can’t cat a text file)
👹 # bzcat mail.log.* > /tmp/mail.combined && cat mail.log >> /tmp/mail.combined
👹 # pflogsumm /tmp/mail.combined --detail 15
--
I've got a sonic screwdriver!
Yeah? I've got a chair!
...
Chairs *are* useful.
On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 09:45:20PM +0100, Lars Kollstedt wrote:
> We've someone running
>
> smtpd_tls_received_header=yes
> smtpd_tls_ask_ccert = yes
> smtpd_tls_CApath=/etc/ssl/certs
>
> on his Postfix MX servers in our nearer environment, but I don't want
> to maintain a list of all his domai
Why it doesn’t break From: header SPF? Just curious
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019, at 4:12 AM, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> > Or in short: DMARC intentionally breaks every mailinglist and every
> > mail-forwarding. So, if a mail-provider uses a strict DMARC-policy,
> > it effectively says: "Our mail-addresses
* Wesley Peng:
> Why it doesn’t break From: header SPF? Just curious
See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7208, in particular the "MAIL FROM
Definition" section.
-Ralph
On 11/24/19 6:21 PM, Wesley Peng wrote:
> Why it doesn’t break From: header SPF? Just curious
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019, at 4:12 AM, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>> > Or in short: DMARC intentionally breaks every mailinglist and every
>> > mail-forwarding. So, if a mail-provider uses a strict DMARC-polic
Hi Viktor,
at first thank you for your two answers. I decided to keep my reactions to
them in order but in all in this answer. ;-)
On Friday, 22. November 2019, 23:29:46 CET Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> Have you recently seen MX hosts that solicit client certs and then abort
> the TLS handshake when
That's great explation. Thanks Richard.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019, at 7:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/24/19 6:21 PM, Wesley Peng wrote:
> > Why it doesn’t break From: header SPF? Just curious
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019, at 4:12 AM, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> >> > Or in short: DMARC intentionally
14 matches
Mail list logo
