[Raw Msg Headers][Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: spf localpolicy patch

Eugene Crosser wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-07-25 at 23:18, Matti Aarnio wrote:
>>>1. adds spf local policy parameter passing from smtpserver.conf to libspf2
>>>2. adds spf use_default_whitelist parameter passing (same direction)
>>>3. prevents libspf2 handle to be recreated on each message
>>>4. changes smtpserver config parser to be able to parse strings with spaces (quoted parameters)
>>>5. improves work with HAVE_LIBSPF like definitions
>>>6. fixes some bug(s?)
>>Could Eugene Crosser say his verdict on this ?
> (1,2): I did not bother to deal with SPF localpolicy because I think
> that smtp-policy allows to do the same thing, i.e. skip SPF checks for
> particular networks.  Keeping a separate configuration for SPF would add
> unnecessary complexity.  I very well may be wrong here, and I'd
> appreciate arguments for otherwise...
> (3): probably a right thing to do
> (4): up to Matti
> (5,6): bugs are possible.  I admit that I did not look that closely at
> the diff.
> Maybe Igor could provide reasoning for using spf localpolicy, or make
> bugfix/improvements diffs separate from the new functionality please?

SPF localpolicy may be used for forwarder problem case, there 
smtp-policy can't be used.
For example, we can whitelist own 'trusted forwarders' using own 
localpolicy and (independently) trusted-forwarders.org 
(use_default_whitelist flag).
Mail from trusted will be checked by SPF, but will not fail in forwarding.

So, of course, I can separate diffs to bugfix and improvements, but I 
think including localpolicy is a right way.

> Eugene

virtan / software developer / virtan@yandex-team.ru // BSrLblbG
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe zmailer" in
the body of a message to majordomo@nic.funet.fi