On 04/27/2014 03:15 PM, Joe wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Since you said that newsgroups would allow non-members to post to the lists I
> have to assume that these newsgroups are open to the general public. Is this
> the case ?
Some are, some aren't.
> Some of my lists need to be kept private and can'
Mark,
Since you said that newsgroups would allow non-members to post to the lists I
have to assume that these newsgroups are open to the general public. Is this
the case ?
Some of my lists need to be kept private and can't be opened to the public (due
to privacy and confidentiality laws). Is
On 04/27/2014 02:27 PM, Joe wrote:
>
> In this case, assuming I open the gate and allow posts from the Newsgroups to
> be posted to the list even by non-members, is there a way to have all posts
> from the Newsgroups set to moderation so that I get the chance to review them
> first before they
Mark,
This represents a serious potential risk. One of the problems I've noticed over
the years with most Usenet groups is that they tend to attract a lot of spam
and non-relevants posts.
In this case, assuming I open the gate and allow posts from the Newsgroups to
be posted to the list even b
On 04/27/2014 11:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> One question I have had over how this works is why SPF is added to the
> mix. If the message passes SPF, then it has come directly from a server
> that is supposedly controlled by the sending provider. Said server
> should have been able to DKIM sign
>> By default, local_recipient_maps includes $alias_maps, and I *think* it
should in your case.
>> Why this lack would cause Postfix to use the virtual_transport rather
than local in just this
>> one case is really a question for postfix-us...@postfix.org or some other
Postfix resource,
>> but y
On 4/27/14, 1:34 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> On 04/27/2014 10:16 AM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
>> My understanding is that DMARC alignment depends on both SPF and DKIM
>> and that if a test using either protocol passes, then a DMARC will pass.
>> This is probably an oversimplification, but I'm exploring
On Sun, 2014-04-27 at 10:34 -0700, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> On 04/27/2014 10:16 AM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> > My understanding is that DMARC alignment depends on both SPF and DKIM
> > and that if a test using either protocol passes, then a DMARC will pass.
> > This is probably an oversimplification, b
On 04/27/2014 10:16 AM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> My understanding is that DMARC alignment depends on both SPF and DKIM
> and that if a test using either protocol passes, then a DMARC will pass.
> This is probably an oversimplification, but I'm exploring the idea of
> whether it might be possible to
My understanding is that DMARC alignment depends on both SPF and DKIM
and that if a test using either protocol passes, then a DMARC will pass.
This is probably an oversimplification, but I'm exploring the idea of
whether it might be possible to interpose a milter using OpenDKIM
(perhaps zdkimfilter
On 04/27/2014 05:46 AM, Joe wrote:
>
> In the case you describe the server would send posts to the newsgroups and
> readers would access these newsgroups to see the posts. So posts are sent to
> the list using each list's e-mail address and then 'copied' to the
> newsserver. What happens when r
Hi, Mark.
In the case you describe the server would send posts to the newsgroups and
readers would access these newsgroups to see the posts. So posts are sent to
the list using each list's e-mail address and then 'copied' to the newsserver.
What happens when readers wish to reply to what they r
12 matches
Mail list logo
