Menu
▾
▴
sid-milter-discuss — General discussion and usage issues
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2004 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(61) |
Oct
(39) |
Nov
(13) |
Dec
(3) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(5) |
Jun
|
Jul
(30) |
Aug
(3) |
Sep
(12) |
Oct
(10) |
Nov
(24) |
Dec
(5) |
| 2006 |
Jan
(18) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(3) |
Apr
(5) |
May
(30) |
Jun
|
Jul
(7) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(5) |
Nov
(1) |
Dec
(5) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(1) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(1) |
| 2008 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(3) |
Jun
(20) |
Jul
(4) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(4) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2009 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(2) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(2) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(3) |
Dec
|
| 2010 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(1) |
Apr
|
May
(1) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2011 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(5) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(2) |
Oct
(5) |
Nov
(3) |
Dec
|
| 2012 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(2) |
| 2016 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(3) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: 田中将詞 <mta...@gm...> - 2016-03-16 14:44:42
|
hi. steven. 2016年3月15日(火) 3:29 Steven M Jones <sm...@cr...>: > It seems your test message is being sent with an RFC5321.MFROM of > <us...@om...><us...@om...> <us...@om...>, which I do > not find an SPF record for. Nor do I see an SPF record for none.gxy.com... > > 1 abort% dig +short txt none.gxy.com > 2 abort% dig +short txt omy.comy.com > 3 abort% > > If you changed the domain names for privacy reasons that's understandable, > but you may wish to confirm the real domains have published records. You > may want to use one of the SPF record checkers listed here: > http://www.openspf.org/Tools > gxy.com and none.gxy.com is test domain in local network. And SPF Record does not exist. But this time of the event omy.comy.com is correct , none.gxy.com. have been processed incorrectly . - sid-milterlog and sendmaillog Mar 11 13:41:48 xxxxxxxx sendmail [8601]: u2B4flcT008601: from=< us...@no...>, size=9830, class=0, nrcpts=1, msgid=<yyy...@gx... >, bodytype=7BIT, proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=test.gxy.com [192.168.100.1] Mar 11 13:41:48 xxxxxxxx sendmail [8601]: u2B4flcT008601: Milter insert (1): header: Authentication-Results: xxxx.gxy.com; sender-id = none header.from=us...@no...; spf = none smtp.mfrom= us...@om... *** I'm worried about memcpy being used for rfc2822.c. Best regards. |
|
From: Steven M J. <sm...@cr...> - 2016-03-14 18:28:45
|
On 03/13/2016 21:48, 田中将詞 wrote: > Can I ask you a question about Sendmail SPF. The sid-milter has not been supported for years now. It hasn't kept pace with revisions to the SPF spec, and has known limitations such as problems with IPv6. You may want to check http://www.openspf.org/Implementations for alternate implementations. Note that the OpenDMARC milter can be built to perform SPF checks, so if you were thinking off adding DMARC anyway ... > sender: us...@no... > Header-from: us...@no... <mailto:us...@no...> > log: > Mar 11 13:41:48 xxxxxxxx sendmail [8601]: u2B4flcT008601: Milter > insert (1): header: Authentication-Results: xxxx.gxy.com > <http://xxxx.gxy.com>; sender-id = none header.from=us...@no... > <mailto:us...@no...>; spf = none smtp.mfrom=us...@om... > <mailto:us...@om...> It seems your test message is being sent with an RFC5321.MFROM of <us...@om...>, which I do not find an SPF record for. Nor do I see an SPF record for none.gxy.com... 1 abort% dig +short txt none.gxy.com 2 abort% dig +short txt omy.comy.com 3 abort% If you changed the domain names for privacy reasons that's understandable, but you may wish to confirm the real domains have published records. You may want to use one of the SPF record checkers listed here: http://www.openspf.org/Tools --S. |
|
From: 田中将詞 <mta...@gm...> - 2016-03-14 04:48:32
|
Can I ask you a question about Sendmail SPF.Now We are testing about Sendmail SPF. But there is a problem that input domain differ, like I wrote down below (Example). Almost is fine but about 1% is wrong in my case. Do you have any idea? *We are using sendmail 8.14.4 on redhat. Example) sender: us...@no... Header-from: us...@no... log: Mar 11 13:41:48 xxxxxxxx sendmail [8601]: u2B4flcT008601: Milter insert (1): header: Authentication-Results: xxxx.gxy.com; sender-id = none header.from=us...@no...; spf = none smtp.mfrom=us...@om... * Sid-milter 1.0.0 Best. mtanaka |
|
From: Hirohisa Y. <um...@gm...> - 2012-12-14 11:56:45
|
Hi, On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Marko Weber | zbfmail <we...@zb...> wrote: > i use on gentoo sid-milter 1.0.0-r5 > since some days, on reboot when machine turns back i notice sid-milter > is not started. > log tells me, that sid-milter misses /var/run/sid-milter. > so i created the folder again, and milter starts fine. > after a further revoot, woooosh, /var/run/sid-milter is again away. so > sid-milter doesnt start. > is that sid-milter related? has anyone same behavior? sid-filter itself does not create or delete /var/run stuff. It's up to your start up script (somewhere in /etc/rc.d/ or /etc/init.d/, &c...) Regards, -- Hirohisa Yamaguchi <um...@gm...> |
|
From: Marko W. | z. <we...@zb...> - 2012-12-14 10:23:21
|
hello list, i use on gentoo sid-milter 1.0.0-r5 since some days, on reboot when machine turns back i notice sid-milter is not started. log tells me, that sid-milter misses /var/run/sid-milter. so i created the folder again, and milter starts fine. after a further revoot, woooosh, /var/run/sid-milter is again away. so sid-milter doesnt start. is that sid-milter related? has anyone same behavior? from cold cloudy hamburg/germany marko |
|
From: fakessh @ <ml...@sm...> - 2011-11-26 03:36:50
|
hello guys hello folks There are two patch with sid milter http://darkstar.ist.utl.pt/gentoo/portage/mail-filter/sid-milter/files/sid-milter-1.0.0-nopra_on_spf1.patch http://darkstar.ist.utl.pt/gentoo/portage/mail-filter/sid-milter/files/sid-milter-1.0.0-as-needed.patch it is necessary to apply them in the creation of an rpm? all testimonials are welcome -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x092164A7 gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-key 092164A7 http://urlshort.eu fakessh @ http://gplus.to/fakessh http://gplus.to/john.swilting |
|
From: fakessh @ <ml...@sm...> - 2011-11-23 17:54:10
|
hello guys hello folks I revisited my fields TXT always be more in line with SenderID its time is that @localhost ~]$ host -ttxt smtp.fakessh.eu 8.8.8.8 Using domain server: Name: 8.8.8.8 Address: 8.8.8.8#53 Aliases: smtp.fakessh.eu descriptive text "spf2.0/pra ip4:46.105.34.177 ip4:91.121.7.86 ?all" smtp.fakessh.eu descriptive text "v=spf1 a ip4:46.105.34.177 ip4:91.121.7.86 mx:mail.fakessh.eu ?all" smtp.fakessh.eu descriptive text "spf2.0/mfrom ip4:46.105.34.177 ip4:91.121.7.86 ~all" I have received positive response of the robot microsoft a while ago but still not getting emails the number of hash of sender id what to do -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x092164A7 gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-key 092164A7 http://urlshort.eu fakessh @ |
|
From: fakessh @ <ml...@sm...> - 2011-11-07 02:24:29
|
hi list hi guru hi nice people here is the sender id that is not that complicated . but how long is it necessary to appear for the number of the hash inside the body of the mail. I received the response from Microsoft but it is any idees for me -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x092164A7 gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-key 092164A7 http://urlshort.eu fakessh @ |
|
From: fakessh @ <ml...@sm...> - 2011-10-26 12:19:51
|
hi list hi all apologies to microsoft I want your help failing to replace sender id on my new machine It worked fine on the old and now it does not work anymore, however I respect the standards all testimonials are welcome -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x092164A7 gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-key 092164A7 http://urlshort.eu fakessh @ |
|
From: fakessh @ <ml...@sm...> - 2011-10-20 17:51:17
|
Le dimanche 16 octobre 2011 18:40, fakessh @ a écrit : > Le dimanche 16 octobre 2011 15:57, fakessh @ a écrit : > > hi list > > > > I am writing because my emails not always show hash validation of sender > > id but I showed a proper TXT record > > and yet I received the mail back from microsoft > > > > > > all testimonials are welcome > > ks37777 and r13151 are two differents hostname and failover to in my > possession > i made a test > a test ( ancien hostname r13151 are compliant to sender id ) i write a > modification to /etc/sysconfig/sid-milter for provide a ancien hostname > > Perhaps this is he going to set up the hash ? after the positive response from microsoft "replication on their servers" I just republish a new field on my TXT domain name ~]# host -t txt fakessh.eu fakessh.eu descriptive text "v=spf1 a mx ptr ip4:46.105.34.177 ip4:91.121.7.86 mx:mail.fakessh.eu -all" I know that this field is valid for TXT Sender ID me if microsoft made this story -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x092164A7 gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-key 092164A7 http://urlshort.eu fakessh @ |
|
From: fakessh @ <ml...@sm...> - 2011-10-19 16:56:14
|
Le dimanche 16 octobre 2011 18:40, fakessh @ a écrit : > Le dimanche 16 octobre 2011 15:57, fakessh @ a écrit : > > hi list > > > > I am writing because my emails not always show hash validation of sender > > id but I showed a proper TXT record > > and yet I received the mail back from microsoft > > > > > > all testimonials are welcome > > ks37777 and r13151 are two differents hostname and failover to in my > possession > i made a test > a test ( ancien hostname r13151 are compliant to sender id ) i write a > modification to /etc/sysconfig/sid-milter for provide a ancien hostname > > Perhaps this is he going to set up the hash ? after several trials with different hostnames I have not the hash, and yet I repeat I am in agreement with Microsoft for the fields TXT I received the email service telling me that their services replicate data. 80 hours that this is done. what do do you think -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x092164A7 gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-key 092164A7 http://urlshort.eu fakessh @ |
|
From: fakessh @ <ml...@sm...> - 2011-10-16 16:46:19
|
Le dimanche 16 octobre 2011 15:57, fakessh @ a écrit : > hi list > > I am writing because my emails not always show hash validation of sender id > but I showed a proper TXT record > and yet I received the mail back from microsoft > > > all testimonials are welcome ks37777 and r13151 are two differents hostname and failover to in my possession i made a test a test ( ancien hostname r13151 are compliant to sender id ) i write a modification to /etc/sysconfig/sid-milter for provide a ancien hostname Perhaps this is he going to set up the hash ? -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x092164A7 gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-key 092164A7 http://urlshort.eu fakessh @ |
|
From: fakessh @ <ml...@sm...> - 2011-10-16 13:57:49
|
hi list I am writing because my emails not always show hash validation of sender id but I showed a proper TXT record and yet I received the mail back from microsoft all testimonials are welcome -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x092164A7 gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-key 092164A7 http://urlshort.eu fakessh @ |
|
From: <ml...@sm...> - 2011-09-15 17:15:01
|
Le jeudi 15 septembre 2011 02:02, ml...@sm... a écrit : > hello list > > i use spf record like that > v=spf1 a mx ptr ip4:94.23.60.214 mx:rps7672.ovh.net -all > > this is correct how to complete the entire certification Sender ID you should publish an empty spf2.0/pra record. "spf2.0/pra ?all" this is correct -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x092164A7 gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-key 092164A7 http://urlshort.eu fakessh @ |
|
From: <ml...@sm...> - 2011-09-15 00:03:30
|
hello list i use spf record like that v=spf1 a mx ptr ip4:94.23.60.214 mx:rps7672.ovh.net -all this is correct -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x092164A7 gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-key 092164A7 https://urlshort.eu fakessh @ |
|
From: Varghese, D. <dan...@hp...> - 2011-05-24 14:26:23
|
Sorry for the confusion, I mean SID . Let me re-write the whole story again. The first example that we had picked BlackBerry(BB) configure to Send mail using AOL account. Similarly BB configured to send yahoo/hotmail SID gives us "none" and "softfail" is that right? Regards, Daniel -----Original Message----- From: Varghese, Daniel Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:42 PM To: sid...@li... Subject: Re: [sid-milter-discuss] Sender-ID validation via Blackberry failing Hi Peter, Thanks for your reply. I'm replying this mail quite late since I'm new to this domain and trying to understand the Basics. If the same mail has comes via yahoo/hotmail SPF gives us "none" and "softfail" is that right? Regards, Daniel -----Original Message----- From: Dick St. Peters [mailto:st.peters@NetHeaven.com] Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 5:21 AM To: Varghese, Daniel Cc: st.peters@NetHeaven.com Subject: Re: [sid-milter-discuss] Sender-ID validation via Blackberry failing Hi, Sender-ID uses the PRA, which in most cases is the header.from address. In particular, it is not the envelope from address, except when they happen to be the same address. While they are commonly the same address, for your example mail they are not the same. The header.from domain in that mail is aol.com, and the aol.com SPF record ends with ~all - which is neutral, meaning the sid-milter Sender-ID result is correct. -- Dick St. Peters, st.peters@NetHeaven.com Gatekeeper, NetHeaven, Saratoga Springs, NY Sharma, Ashish writes: > Hi, > > I have a Postfix mail receiving server, on this I am using sid-milter (found at http://sourceforge.net/projects/sid-milter/ got from http://www.postfix.org/addon.html) tool to validate senderID and SPF. > > Here the problem is for mail servers that implement Sender-ID, mail servers that are implementing sender-ID and having their mails sent via Blackberry are having their sender-ID (sender-id=neutral) not getting verified on my postfix end. > > Following are the mail headers that I am receiving: > > >From SRS0=nRLNv7=UW=aol.com=xx...@sr... Mon Jan 24 11:05:10 2011 > Return-Path: <SRS0=nRLNv7=UW=aol.com=xxx...@sr...> > X-Original-To: cp...@de... > Delivered-To: cp...@de... > Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by dev1.cpgtest.ostinet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94AA2828C > for <cp...@de...>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:05:10 -0500 (EST) > Authentication-Results: dev1.cpgtest.ostinet.net; sender-id=neutral header.from=xxx...@ao...; spf=pass smtp.mfrom=SRS0=nRLNv7=UW=aol.com=xxx...@sr... > X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.1.3 dev1.cpgtest.ostinet.net D5DEA2815D > Authentication-Results: dev1.cpgtest.ostinet.net; dkim=none (no signature); > dkim-adsp=none > Received: from b27.c7.bise7.blackberry ([192.168.0.127]) > by srs.bis7.eu.blackberry.com (8.13.7 TEAMON/8.13.7) with ESMTP id p0OFtGaw021900 > for cp...@de...; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:05:09 GMT > X-rim-org-msg-ref-id: 300123690 > Message-ID: <300...@b2...se7.blackberry> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > Reply-To: xxx...@ao... > X-Priority: Normal > References: <160...@b2...se7.blackberry> > In-Reply-To: <160...@b2...se7.blackberry> > Sensitivity: Normal > Importance: Normal > Subject: Re: Test from aol > To: cp...@de... > From: xxx...@ao... > Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:05:51 +0000 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Status: RO > > > Can anybody tell me what needs to be done at my end to get sender-ID for mails sent via Blackberry to be verified and passed correctly. > > Also as can be seen Blackberry implements SRS (Sender Rewrite Scheme): > > Authentication-Results: dev1.cpgtest.ostinet.net; sender-id=neutral header.from=xxx...@ao...; spf=pass smtp.mfrom=SRS0=nRLNv7=UW=aol.com=xxx...@sr... > > so as per my understanding Sender-ID validation should in this case work flawless as Sender Rewrite Scheme(SRS) makes sure SPF passes if a mail forwarder has implemented SRS as per information available at the links http://www.openspf.org/SRS and http://www.libsrs2.org/srs/srs.pdf > > If the above information is correct, then why sid-milter is behaving as experienced, is it a bug? > > Thanks > Ashish Sharma > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability > What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know. > Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools > to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay > _______________________________________________ > sid-milter-discuss mailing list > sid...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sid-milter-discuss ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. Download your free trial now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 _______________________________________________ sid-milter-discuss mailing list sid...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sid-milter-discuss |
|
From: Varghese, D. <dan...@hp...> - 2011-05-24 14:12:55
|
Hi Peter, Thanks for your reply. I'm replying this mail quite late since I'm new to this domain and trying to understand the Basics. If the same mail has comes via yahoo/hotmail SPF gives us "none" and "softfail" is that right? Regards, Daniel -----Original Message----- From: Dick St. Peters [mailto:st.peters@NetHeaven.com] Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 5:21 AM To: Varghese, Daniel Cc: st.peters@NetHeaven.com Subject: Re: [sid-milter-discuss] Sender-ID validation via Blackberry failing Hi, Sender-ID uses the PRA, which in most cases is the header.from address. In particular, it is not the envelope from address, except when they happen to be the same address. While they are commonly the same address, for your example mail they are not the same. The header.from domain in that mail is aol.com, and the aol.com SPF record ends with ~all - which is neutral, meaning the sid-milter Sender-ID result is correct. -- Dick St. Peters, st.peters@NetHeaven.com Gatekeeper, NetHeaven, Saratoga Springs, NY Sharma, Ashish writes: > Hi, > > I have a Postfix mail receiving server, on this I am using sid-milter (found at http://sourceforge.net/projects/sid-milter/ got from http://www.postfix.org/addon.html) tool to validate senderID and SPF. > > Here the problem is for mail servers that implement Sender-ID, mail servers that are implementing sender-ID and having their mails sent via Blackberry are having their sender-ID (sender-id=neutral) not getting verified on my postfix end. > > Following are the mail headers that I am receiving: > > >From SRS0=nRLNv7=UW=aol.com=xx...@sr... Mon Jan 24 11:05:10 2011 > Return-Path: <SRS0=nRLNv7=UW=aol.com=xxx...@sr...> > X-Original-To: cp...@de... > Delivered-To: cp...@de... > Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by dev1.cpgtest.ostinet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94AA2828C > for <cp...@de...>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:05:10 -0500 (EST) > Authentication-Results: dev1.cpgtest.ostinet.net; sender-id=neutral header.from=xxx...@ao...; spf=pass smtp.mfrom=SRS0=nRLNv7=UW=aol.com=xxx...@sr... > X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.1.3 dev1.cpgtest.ostinet.net D5DEA2815D > Authentication-Results: dev1.cpgtest.ostinet.net; dkim=none (no signature); > dkim-adsp=none > Received: from b27.c7.bise7.blackberry ([192.168.0.127]) > by srs.bis7.eu.blackberry.com (8.13.7 TEAMON/8.13.7) with ESMTP id p0OFtGaw021900 > for cp...@de...; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:05:09 GMT > X-rim-org-msg-ref-id: 300123690 > Message-ID: <300...@b2...se7.blackberry> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > Reply-To: xxx...@ao... > X-Priority: Normal > References: <160...@b2...se7.blackberry> > In-Reply-To: <160...@b2...se7.blackberry> > Sensitivity: Normal > Importance: Normal > Subject: Re: Test from aol > To: cp...@de... > From: xxx...@ao... > Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:05:51 +0000 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Status: RO > > > Can anybody tell me what needs to be done at my end to get sender-ID for mails sent via Blackberry to be verified and passed correctly. > > Also as can be seen Blackberry implements SRS (Sender Rewrite Scheme): > > Authentication-Results: dev1.cpgtest.ostinet.net; sender-id=neutral header.from=xxx...@ao...; spf=pass smtp.mfrom=SRS0=nRLNv7=UW=aol.com=xxx...@sr... > > so as per my understanding Sender-ID validation should in this case work flawless as Sender Rewrite Scheme(SRS) makes sure SPF passes if a mail forwarder has implemented SRS as per information available at the links http://www.openspf.org/SRS and http://www.libsrs2.org/srs/srs.pdf > > If the above information is correct, then why sid-milter is behaving as experienced, is it a bug? > > Thanks > Ashish Sharma > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability > What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know. > Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools > to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay > _______________________________________________ > sid-milter-discuss mailing list > sid...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sid-milter-discuss |
|
From: <stpeters@NetHeaven.com> - 2011-05-16 22:04:10
|
SM writes: > At 07:00 16-05-2011, Sharma, Ashish wrote: > >Adding DKIM mailing list guys to suggest some help. > > The message is probably off-topic for the mailing lists you sent it to. > > If it is a sid-milter bug, it is unlikely that it will be > fixed. There are currently 11 known bugs listed in the tracker. It is not a sid-milter bug. I sent an off-list reply to the original poster (Varghese, Daniel) on May 12. The mail in question was sent from blackberry.com (server IP 192.168.0.127), but it had an @aol.com address as its header.from address. Therefore the relevant SPF record used by Sender-ID is the aol.com SPF record. That record does not permit or reject the blackberry.com mail server IP, so the neutral result reported by sid-milter is correct. -- Dick St. Peters, st.peters@NetHeaven.com Gatekeeper, NetHeaven, Saratoga Springs, NY |
|
From: SM <sm...@re...> - 2011-05-16 16:30:16
|
At 07:00 16-05-2011, Sharma, Ashish wrote: >Adding DKIM mailing list guys to suggest some help. The message is probably off-topic for the mailing lists you sent it to. If it is a sid-milter bug, it is unlikely that it will be fixed. There are currently 11 known bugs listed in the tracker. Regards, -sm |
|
From: Sharma, A. <ash...@hp...> - 2011-05-11 12:02:52
|
Hi, I have a Postfix mail receiving server, on this I am using sid-milter (found at http://sourceforge.net/projects/sid-milter/ got from http://www.postfix.org/addon.html) tool to validate senderID and SPF. Here the problem is for mail servers that implement Sender-ID, mail servers that are implementing sender-ID and having their mails sent via Blackberry are having their sender-ID (sender-id=neutral) not getting verified on my postfix end. Following are the mail headers that I am receiving: >From SRS0=nRLNv7=UW=aol.com=xx...@sr... Mon Jan 24 11:05:10 2011 Return-Path: <SRS0=nRLNv7=UW=aol.com=xxx...@sr...> X-Original-To: cp...@de... Delivered-To: cp...@de... Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dev1.cpgtest.ostinet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94AA2828C for <cp...@de...>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:05:10 -0500 (EST) Authentication-Results: dev1.cpgtest.ostinet.net; sender-id=neutral header.from=xxx...@ao...; spf=pass smtp.mfrom=SRS0=nRLNv7=UW=aol.com=xxx...@sr... X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.1.3 dev1.cpgtest.ostinet.net D5DEA2815D Authentication-Results: dev1.cpgtest.ostinet.net; dkim=none (no signature); dkim-adsp=none Received: from b27.c7.bise7.blackberry ([192.168.0.127]) by srs.bis7.eu.blackberry.com (8.13.7 TEAMON/8.13.7) with ESMTP id p0OFtGaw021900 for cp...@de...; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:05:09 GMT X-rim-org-msg-ref-id: 300123690 Message-ID: <300...@b2...se7.blackberry> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Reply-To: xxx...@ao... X-Priority: Normal References: <160...@b2...se7.blackberry> In-Reply-To: <160...@b2...se7.blackberry> Sensitivity: Normal Importance: Normal Subject: Re: Test from aol To: cp...@de... From: xxx...@ao... Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:05:51 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" MIME-Version: 1.0 Status: RO Can anybody tell me what needs to be done at my end to get sender-ID for mails sent via Blackberry to be verified and passed correctly. Also as can be seen Blackberry implements SRS (Sender Rewrite Scheme): Authentication-Results: dev1.cpgtest.ostinet.net; sender-id=neutral header.from=xxx...@ao...; spf=pass smtp.mfrom=SRS0=nRLNv7=UW=aol.com=xxx...@sr... so as per my understanding Sender-ID validation should in this case work flawless as Sender Rewrite Scheme(SRS) makes sure SPF passes if a mail forwarder has implemented SRS as per information available at the links http://www.openspf.org/SRS and http://www.libsrs2.org/srs/srs.pdf If the above information is correct, then why sid-milter is behaving as experienced, is it a bug? Thanks Ashish Sharma |
|
From: Lima U. <lim...@gm...> - 2010-07-05 18:44:47
|
Hi all! I'm running Postfix 2.7.0 + sid-filter v1.0.0, the problem is that according to http://www.postfix.org/MILTER_README.html you read: "and sid-filter version 1.0.0 no longer includes the queue ID in the message header." but checking the log file I'm getting the error: "sid-filter[12281]: WARNING: sendmail symbol 'i' not available" Can anyone help me with this ? why am I having this error if I'm running v.1.0? is this just a harmless message or not ? TIA! |
|
From: Lima U. <lim...@gm...> - 2010-06-25 13:08:10
|
hi all! I'm trying to compile sid-milter 1.0 under RHEL 5.5 x64 but am getting the following error. Does anyone by chance have a package (rpm) for my distro ? Thanks in advance for any tips. LU make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/superuser/data.software/sid-milter-1.0.0/obj.Linux.2.6.18-194.3.1.el5.x86_64/libmarid' Making all in: /home/superuser/data.software/sid-milter-1.0.0/sid-filter Configuration: pfx=, os=Linux, rel=2.6.18-194.3.1.el5, rbase=2, rroot=2.6.18-194.3.1, arch=x86_64, sfx=, variant=optimized Making in /home/superuser/data.software/sid-milter-1.0.0/obj.Linux.2.6.18-194.3.1.el5.x86_64/sid-filter make[1]: Entering directory `/home/superuser/data.software/sid-milter-1.0.0/obj.Linux.2.6.18-194.3.1.el5.x86_64/sid-filter' cc -O2 -I. -I../../libar -I../../libmarid -I../../sendmail -I../../include -DUSE_ARLIB -D_REENTRANT -DXP_MT -c -o sid-filter.o sid-filter.c cc -O2 -I. -I../../libar -I../../libmarid -I../../sendmail -I../../include -DUSE_ARLIB -D_REENTRANT -DXP_MT -c -o rfc2822.o rfc2822.c cc -O2 -I. -I../../libar -I../../libmarid -I../../sendmail -I../../include -DUSE_ARLIB -D_REENTRANT -DXP_MT -c -o util.o util.c cc -o sid-filter -lpthread sid-filter.o rfc2822.o util.o -lmilter /home/superuser/data.software/sid-milter-1.0.0/obj.Linux.2.6.18-194.3.1.el5.x86_64/libar/libar.a /home/superuser/data.software/sid-milter-1.0.0/obj.Linux.2.6.18-194.3.1.el5.x86_64/libmarid/libmarid.a /home/superuser/data.software/sid-milter-1.0.0/obj.Linux.2.6.18-194.3.1.el5.x86_64/libsm/libsm.a -ldl sid-filter.o: In function `sid_decode_a': sid-filter.c:(.text+0x733): undefined reference to `__dn_expand' sid-filter.c:(.text+0x73e): undefined reference to `__dn_skipname' sid-filter.c:(.text+0x7a0): undefined reference to `__dn_expand' sid-filter.o: In function `sid_marid_check': sid-filter.c:(.text+0xc6f): undefined reference to `__dn_expand' sid-filter.c:(.text+0xc7a): undefined reference to `__dn_skipname' sid-filter.c:(.text+0xf90): undefined reference to `__dn_expand' sid-filter.c:(.text+0x1533): undefined reference to `__dn_expand' sid-filter.c:(.text+0x1603): undefined reference to `__dn_expand' sid-filter.c:(.text+0x170a): undefined reference to `__dn_expand' /home/superuser/data.software/sid-milter-1.0.0/obj.Linux.2.6.18-194.3.1.el5.x86_64/libar/libar.a(ar.o): In function `ar_sendquery': ar.c:(.text+0x15e7): undefined reference to `__res_nmkquery' /home/superuser/data.software/sid-milter-1.0.0/obj.Linux.2.6.18-194.3.1.el5.x86_64/libar/libar.a(ar.o): In function `ar_dispatcher': ar.c:(.text+0x2053): undefined reference to `__dn_skipname' ar.c:(.text+0x207a): undefined reference to `__dn_skipname' ar.c:(.text+0x20d3): undefined reference to `__dn_expand' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[1]: *** [sid-filter] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/superuser/data.software/sid-milter-1.0.0/obj.Linux.2.6.18-194.3.1.el5.x86_64/sid-filter' make: *** [all] Error 2 |
|
From: Sharma, A. <ash...@hp...> - 2010-05-25 13:45:06
|
Hi, I have deployed a postfix server for email receiving. On this I have configured SenderID + SPF milter, by referring to http://www.postfix.org/MILTER_README.html The command that I used is as follows: ./sid-filter -u postfix -p inet:10027@localhost -l Following are my settings in main.cf file: #Milter support for smtpd mail smtpd_milters = inet:localhost:10027, inet:localhost:10028 # Milters for non-SMTP mail. non_smtpd_milters = inet:localhost:10027, inet:localhost:10028 milter_default_action = reject # Postfix . 2.6 #milter_protocol = 6 # 2.3 . Postfix . 2.5 milter_protocol = 2 Now I have this observation: 1. One of the postfix that is setup on AWS CentOS 5.5 is working fine and is able to receive mails on defined mx record. 2. One of the similar postfix(as in step 1) that is setup behind one of the corporate firewalls is not able to receive any mails and is giving following type of error logs: connect from g2t0444g.austin.hp.com[15.217.96.198] May 25 13:20:02 g2t0385g postfix/smtpd[11733]: C11F9B0194: client=g2t0444g.austin.hp.com[15.217.96.198] May 25 13:20:03 g2t0385g postfix/cleanup[11814]: C11F9B0194: message-id=<AAN...@ma...> May 25 13:20:03 g2t0385g postfix/cleanup[11814]: C11F9B0194: milter-reject: END-OF-MESSAGE from g2t0444g.austin.hp.com[15.217.96.198]: 5.7.1 Command rejected; from=<ash...@gm...> to=<925...@st...> proto=ESMTP helo=<ey-out-1920.google.com> Here the 'sid-filter' is giving problems. Any idea, what I am doing wrong? Please help. Thanks Ashish Sharma |
|
From: Steve M. <mr_...@ho...> - 2010-03-24 10:18:59
|
Having debugged this issue I can confirm that the use of a:domain/cidr is broken , at least when used in an spf1 record, for example: v=spf1 a:widget.com/24 -all I have raised a bug that includes a provisional fix. Cheers Steve |
|
From: Roman G. <rge...@gm...> - 2009-11-22 23:41:00
|
I am running senderid milter. The problem I am facing is that it looks at the previous hop, which is ip 127.0.0.1. Is it possible to control where postfix does it' miltering? Any help is appreciated Thanks in advance |
4 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.