On 25-03-08 13:05:42, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:
>
> I would not recommend dropping messages that are missing SPF or DKIM, you will
> end up dropping a lot fo legitimate mail if you do this. If you want a better
> idea might be to have it affect the SPAM score in a system such as rspamd so
>
On 25-03-09 18:14:26, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2025 at 08:50:17AM +0200, Petko Manolov via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> > On 25-03-08 13:05:42, Peter via Postfix-users wrote: Well, i maybe seeing
> > only in black and white, but if somebody
On 25-03-09 11:09:32, Bill Cole via Postfix-users wrote:
> On 2025-03-09 at 03:39:30 UTC-0400 (Sun, 9 Mar 2025 09:39:30 +0200)
> Petko Manolov via Postfix-users
> is rumored to have said:
>
> > I've recently signed up for Spamhaus' free service. They were helpful
&
On 25-03-09 10:42:04, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
> Petko Manolov via Postfix-users skrev den 2025-03-09 08:23:
>
> > If a message falsely claim it originates from certain domain and then DKIM
> > fail, i very much don't want to receive, let alone read,
On 25-03-09 09:42:46, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote:
> Dnia 9.03.2025 o godz. 09:23:48 Petko Manolov via Postfix-users pisze:
> > Well, one very important property of authenticity is trust.
> >
> > If a message falsely claim it originates from certain domain and
I've recently signed up for Spamhaus' free service. They were helpful enough to
provide postfix setup guide to minimize the pain. I've modified
postscreen_dnsbl_sites accordingly and this morning was greeted by the following
BS...
Mar 09 01:49:12 lan postfix/postscreen[182934]: CONNECT from
[45
On 25-03-09 10:29:51, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
> Petko Manolov via Postfix-users skrev den 2025-03-09 08:39:
>
> > I had to remove zrd.dq.spamhaus.net from postscreen_dnsbl_sites so i can
> > continue to spam you guys with my moronic questions. :)
>
> n
On 25-03-06 07:45:35, Danjel Jungersen via Postfix-users wrote:
> On 05-03-2025 21:23, Bill Cole via Postfix-users wrote:
> > You can use the Spamhaus DNSBLs for free if your query volume is low and
> > your DNS resolver isn't public. DROP is also available free as a JSON file
> > which gets change
On 25-03-06 10:38:54, Danjel Jungersen via Postfix-users wrote:
> On 06-03-2025 09:28, Petko Manolov via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Hmm, zen.spamhaus.org doesn't resolve anymore. I wonder what would be the
> > correct/contemporary version of:
> >
> > reject_rbl
On 25-03-06 18:02:13, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote:
> On 06.03.25 09:28, Petko Manolov via Postfix-users wrote:
> > The goal was to have my dmarc config as tight as possible. Namely:
> >
> > SPFSelfValidate true
> > SPFIgnoreResults true
> > Rej
o
PS: Apologies for the top post.
On 25-03-06 11:47:39, Bill Cole via Postfix-users wrote:
> On 2025-03-06 at 03:28:03 UTC-0500 (Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:28:03 +0100)
> Petko Manolov via Postfix-users
> is rumored to have said:
>
> > On 25-03-05 15:23:11, Bill Cole via Postfix-users wro
On 25-03-10 07:34:41, Dusan Obradovic via Postfix-users wrote:
>
> It is not difficult to override policy published and unconditionally reject
> DMARC failures. This does not follow RFC7489 guidelines:
>
> /etc/postfix/milter_header_checks:
> /^Authentication-Results:.+dmarc=fail/ REJECT
I
12 matches
Mail list logo
