Hello John,
are you willing to share what direction you/IETF are working towards?
What I am really missing is clear statements like SMTP-DANE, SPF, DKIM, DMARC
are mandatory unless you don´t use SMTP at all. While some public providers
support these, many German organizations do not.
Just checked
Hi
In postfix-3.4.23 (debian) I set
(I use always)
smtpd_data_restrictions = reject_unauth_pipelining
And today I put
smtpd_discard_ehlo_keywords = chunking
And I get many many logs like:
...
Dec 29 10:10:13 msmtp postfix/submission/smtpd[11064]: discarding EHLO
keywords: CHUNKING
Dec 29 10:1
On Fri, Dec 29, 2023, Joachim Lindenberg via Postfix-users wrote:
> What I am really missing is clear statements like SMTP-DANE, SPF,
> DKIM, DMARC are mandatory unless you don't use SMTP at all.
Wow... you really want that?
Then subscribe to emailcore and suggest it over there...
To: emailcore-r
On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 10:16:20AM +0100, natan via Postfix-users wrote:
> Hi
> In postfix-3.4.23 (debian) I set
>
> (I use always)
> smtpd_data_restrictions = reject_unauth_pipelining
>
> And today I put
> smtpd_discard_ehlo_keywords = chunking
>
>
> And I get many many logs like:
> ...
> Dec
Hi
A good idea in my opinion, additionally add
reject_sender_login_mismatch with maps (u...@domain.ltd user@domainltd)
smtpd_sender_restrictions =
...
reject_sender_login_mismatch,
...
reject_unauth_pipelining,
Than only reject_unauth_pipelining
smtpd_data_restrictions = reje
Dear Wietse,
On 2023-12-15 22:17:08 +0100, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
Thanks Wietse! Your pseudo-code clarifies the approach chosen by
Postfix. What still remains unclear to me is the order in which
destinations are tried. Let us again consider the
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> John Levine via Postfix-users:
> > Over in the IETF we're slowly working on updating RFC 5321.
> >
> > Today's topic is the HELP command. The current spec says that it is
> > mandatory to implment it. Most MTAs implement it by returning a fixed
> > string, or som
Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
> Dear Wietse,
>
> On 2023-12-15 22:17:08 +0100, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
> >> Thanks Wietse! Your pseudo-code clarifies the approach chosen by
> >> Postfix. What still remains unclear to me is the order in whi
Hi Wietse,
On 2023-12-29 18:36:59 +0100, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
On 2023-12-15 22:17:08 +0100, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
There is no such thing as falling back to A or records after
trying MX records. The two are mutually excl
It appears that Phil Biggs via Postfix-users said:
>Where do see the "mandatory" requirement?
>
>Section 4.1.1.8 says:
>
> SMTP servers SHOULD support HELP without arguments and MAY support it
> with arguments.
SHOULD is IETF-ese for you have to, except that there might be reasons
not to d
It appears that Joachim Lindenberg via Postfix-users
said:
>Hello John,
>are you willing to share what direction you/IETF are working towards?
It's the EMAILCORE working group. You can see the documents here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/emailcore/documents/
>What I am really missing is cl
On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 07:45:45PM +0100, Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users
wrote:
> > And then shows some examples that deminstarte that the using
> > MX records is mutually exclusive with using address (A or ) records.
>
> I think what bears the potential for confusion is what you mean by
On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 01:46:47PM -0500, John Levine via Postfix-users wrote:
> It appears that Phil Biggs via Postfix-users said:
> >Where do see the "mandatory" requirement?
> >
> >Section 4.1.1.8 says:
> >
> > SMTP servers SHOULD support HELP without arguments and MAY support it
> > wit
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Of course, implementing a HELP command is also not much work, so why
not?
That's the conclusion we came to in emailcore. It's so easy to implement
that even though it's been a long time (if ever) since it did anything
useful, it's not worth the hassl
John R. Levine via Postfix-users:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > Of course, implementing a HELP command is also not much work, so why
> > not?
>
> That's the conclusion we came to in emailcore. It's so easy to implement
> that even though it's been a long time (if ever) since it
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023, Wietse Venema wrote:
The real reason is that it's easier to convince a few delinquent
MTA implementors, than an IETF working group.
The WG isn't opposed but we have a very long list of nits to clean up so
I'd rather make the list shorter if as in this case it doesn't matte
John R. Levine via Postfix-users:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > The real reason is that it's easier to convince a few delinquent
> > MTA implementors, than an IETF working group.
>
> The WG isn't opposed but we have a very long list of nits to clean up so
> I'd rather make the l
17 matches
Mail list logo
