I reconfigured everything by default (using "smtp = postscreen") in
order to start from the beginning. I would like to keep this spambots
protection or change it to "smtp = smtpd" with another spambots
protection (if possible).
Before starting I checked configuration (main.cf & master.cf). In
After a lot of tests I've found how to do and it works.
I put disclaimer filter directive under "submission" line in master.cf
and keep "postscreen":
smtp inet n - y - 1 postscreen
[...]
submission inet n - y - - smtpd
-o c
Hello,
I am using python3-spf and I am getting following error from one host
trying to deliver email:
policyd-spf: prepend Received-SPF: Temperror (mailfrom)
identity=mailfrom; client-ip=77.75.76.210; helo=mxd2.seznam.cz;
full log here: https://ctxt.io/2/AABgmS4AFw
What exactly is happening,
On 2022-02-05 14:48, Fourhundred Thecat wrote:
Hello,
I am using python3-spf and I am getting following error from one host
trying to deliver email:
policyd-spf: prepend Received-SPF: Temperror (mailfrom)
identity=mailfrom; client-ip=77.75.76.210; helo=mxd2.seznam.cz;
full log here: https://
On Saturday, February 5, 2022 8:48:22 AM EST Fourhundred Thecat wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am using python3-spf and I am getting following error from one host
> trying to deliver email:
>
>policyd-spf: prepend Received-SPF: Temperror (mailfrom)
> identity=mailfrom; client-ip=77.75.76.210; helo=mxd
Hi,
> > This problem has apparently been all over the internet for years, so I
> > don't think it's an unintentional bug by Microsoft.
> > https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/msoffice/forum/all/routing-to-exchange-online-results-in-spf-softfail/367e14ac-a3ce-46a2-8949-ffbc8f66edc7
>
> If you're th
Just in case you were unaware...
If you are going to use DMARC then you do not need to mess around with or
install policyd-spf.
OpenDMARC has built in SPF lookup, it adds a header with the SPF results, and
uses it in deciding if the email passes DMARC or not.
When using DMARC you wouldn't want t
> On 2022-02-05 16:00, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Saturday, February 5, 2022 8:48:22 AM EST Fourhundred Thecat wrote:
policyd-spf: prepend Received-SPF: Temperror (mailfrom)
identity=mailfrom; client-ip=77.75.76.210; helo=mxd2.seznam.cz;
The policy server itself has the ability to produce
On 2022-02-05 17:15, post...@ptld.com wrote:
Just in case you were unaware...
If you are going to use DMARC then you do not need to mess around with
or install policyd-spf.
you will miss latest rfc on this one
libspf2 is old
> On 02-05-2022 11:47 am, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On 2022-02-05 17:15, post...@ptld.com wrote:
>> Just in case you were unaware...
>>
>> If you are going to use DMARC then you do not need to mess around with
>> or install policyd-spf.
>
> you will miss latest rfc on this one
>
> libspf2 is old
> On 02-05-2022 11:47 am, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On 2022-02-05 17:15, post...@ptld.com wrote:
>> Just in case you were unaware...
>>
>> If you are going to use DMARC then you do not need to mess around with
>> or install policyd-spf.
>
> you will miss latest rfc on this one
>
> libspf2 is old
On 05.02.22 11:55, Forums wrote:
Before starting I checked configuration (main.cf & master.cf). In
main.cf I see that:
content_filter = smtp-amavis:[127.0.0.1]:10024 ==> It seems that this
filter directive override disclaimer filter directive if I put it in
master.cf.
correct. the content_f
post...@ptld.com:
> If you are going to use DMARC then you do not need to mess around with or
> install policyd-spf.
> OpenDMARC has built in SPF lookup, it adds a header with the SPF results, and
> uses it in deciding if the email passes DMARC or not.
OpenDMARC’s is a defective implementation o
> On Feb 5, 2022, at 2:08 PM, David Bürgin wrote:
>
> post...@ptld.com:
>> If you are going to use DMARC then you do not need to mess around with or
>> install policyd-spf.
>> OpenDMARC has built in SPF lookup, it adds a header with the SPF results,
>> and uses it in deciding if the email pa
> We are considering (and the latest releases release notes say) deprecating
> the internal SPF libs, and currently recommend using libspf2, which is not
> perfect, but at least spares us having to maintain our own internal
> implementation.
> -Dan
My system (RHEL8 flavor) is using OpenDMARC v1
On Saturday, February 5, 2022 11:36:40 AM EST Fourhundred Thecat wrote:
> > On 2022-02-05 16:00, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 5, 2022 8:48:22 AM EST Fourhundred Thecat wrote:
> >> policyd-spf: prepend Received-SPF: Temperror (mailfrom)
> >>
> >> identity=mailfrom; client-i
> On 2022-02-06 05:10, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Saturday, February 5, 2022 11:36:40 AM EST Fourhundred Thecat wrote:
> On 2022-02-05 16:00, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Here's how you would do essentially the same query as mentioned in the log
directly with pyspf:
python3 /usr/lib/python3/dist-p
On 31/01/22 07:36, Wietse Venema wrote:
Viktor Dukhovni:
So I was wondering whether the directory currently named "public" should
remain (permission-wise) protected, with the new (permission-wise)
unprotected directly named something else?
It could become mode 755, with dedicated per-app subdir
18 matches
Mail list logo
