From: ram on

On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 12:14 +0000, Simon Waters wrote:
> On Thursday 01 April 2010 12:38:29 J.R.Ewing wrote:
> >
> > Is there any solution?
> > I have idea to move senders address to "reply to" field and write new
> > sender. Is it possible with postfix?
>
> As Ralph says SRS will do this.
>
> However I looked at this recently for a project, where I thought I'd need SRS,
> and after reviewing the various issues and SPF adoption figures, concluded
> I'd ignore SPF.
>
> In particular very few people reject outright on SPF failure (not least this
> isn't a good strategy compared to other filtering methods if all you want to
> do is reduce spam). Various systems handle SPF failed email in a more
> suspicious manner, but that isn't a practical problem in my experience.
>
> SRS might work better for your purpose, but SPF is broken by design and you
> should flag that to the people using it.
>
> We forward a lot of email, we don't do envelope rewriting, and have had a
> handful of complaints over the years, most from the same person who didn't
> seem to understand "we have no plans to change at this time".

SPF if not the only reason why you would need SRS.
We provide SMTP relay for various mail servers.
I want to make sure that every customer uses only his domain(s) and
sends the mail. Important to implement proper usage reporting as well as
stop abuse of network



Thanks
Ram





PS: SPF is used by gmail,hotmail, aol and 40% of the fortune 500
companies in the world among a huge lot of others. I dont think it
makes any sense to flag anything like "SPF is broken" to so many people.
Anyway discussing rising SPF adoption and the unreasonable arguments
against SPF is OT on the postfix mailing list.

From: Wietse Venema on
ram:
>
> On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 12:14 +0000, Simon Waters wrote:
> > On Thursday 01 April 2010 12:38:29 J.R.Ewing wrote:
> > >
> > > Is there any solution?
> > > I have idea to move senders address to "reply to" field and write new
> > > sender. Is it possible with postfix?

Postfix supports DKIM, DomainKeys, SPF, SRS, SenderID, etc., etc.,
via Milter plugins or SMTP-based content filters.

Wietse

From: Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa on
Hi!

This is getting interesting..... How, exactly, does mailman (or other
mailing list manager) handles this? I mean, I have seen several
SPF-enabled domains, and these domains have subscriptions to one or
more lists... now, reading the headers for one of the messages of this
lists, I got this:

Sender: owner-postfix-users(a)postfix.org

So... my guess is that the SPF check will go against this mail
address, not the one on the From field..... am I right?

What do you think?

lldefonso Camargo

From: Sahil Tandon on
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote:

> So... my guess is that the SPF check will go against this mail
> address, not the one on the From field..... am I right?

SPF is against the ENVELOPE, not the HEADER.

--
Sahil Tandon <sahil(a)tandon.net>

From: Wietse Venema on
Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa:
> Hi!
>
> This is getting interesting..... How, exactly, does mailman (or other
> mailing list manager) handles this? I mean, I have seen several
> SPF-enabled domains, and these domains have subscriptions to one or
> more lists... now, reading the headers for one of the messages of this
> lists, I got this:
>
> Sender: owner-postfix-users(a)postfix.org
>
> So... my guess is that the SPF check will go against this mail
> address, not the one on the From field..... am I right?
>
> What do you think?

SPF uses the address in MAIL FROM command. This is sent before
the RCPT TO command and before the message header/body.

Wietse

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: holding local delivery
Next: Unknown maillog entry