Skip to content

Conversation

@hoyohayo
Copy link

@hoyohayo hoyohayo commented Oct 7, 2023

No description provided.

Copy link
Contributor

@nguyenkims nguyenkims left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you please target this branch new-self-host-version instead? It contains the latest version of the doc and will be merged back to master soon.

reject_unauth_destination,
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org,
reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org=127.0.0.[2..11],
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

do you have any doc on spamhaus pointing to this change?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I do not. Sorry, will revert.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with @hoyohayo : if using an open resolver almost every email would get blocked (https://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/788/spamhaus-dnsbl-return-codes-technical-update) and the standard return codes are available here.

Copy link

@Metabaron1 Metabaron1 Nov 25, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I confirm an error when using open resolvers, here is the error:
554 5.7.1 Service unavailable; Client host [xxx] blocked using zen.spamhaus.org; Error: open resolver; https://www.spamhaus.org/returnc/pub/172.71.133.37;
I'm using google DNS for my docker as recommended workaround here
https://www.spamhaus.com/resource-center/successfully-accessing-spamhauss-free-block-lists-using-a-public-dns/
but I don't really like using google DNS...

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@Metabaron1 I would recommend something like this alongside a PTR and you're good to go ;)


```bash
openssl genrsa -out dkim.key 1024
openssl genrsa -traditional -out dkim.key 1024
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@nguyenkims since dkimpy v1.1.0, PKCS#8 is supported. What about you increase the minimum version instead?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do you know if it's compatible with the old key that people generated? I want to make sure that when people upgrade SL, they don't have any issue.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's a try/except trying the old key standard first so still compatible :D.

Copy link

@paulius-valiunas paulius-valiunas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the docker commands are a bit unclear

POSTFIX_SERVER=10.0.0.1
```

Now it is time to build the latest docker. Replace the tag by latest version released (as of writing 4.35.2).

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
Now it is time to build the latest docker. Replace the tag by latest version released (as of writing 4.35.2).
Now it is time to build the latest docker image. Replace the tag by latest version released (as of writing 4.35.2) or any other tag that you prefer.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also, is it safe to build directly from master? How stable is it?

-v $(pwd)/simplelogin.env:/code/.env \
--network="sl-network" \
simplelogin/app:3.4.0 flask db upgrade
simplelogin/app:4.35.2 alembic upgrade head

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Use the same tag as above (here and below). Users might forget to replace the version number.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants