Rupert
Rupert
Libspf2 implements SPF v2, while DMARC's own SPF is v1, or so it has been for a long while. If DMARC's SPF is still implementing the deprecated SPF v1, its...
> > Libspf2 implements SPF v2, while DMARC's own SPF is v1, or so it has been for a long while. If DMARC's SPF is still implementing the deprecated SPF...
> The DMARC RFC calls for an SPF check which is not conformant to either of the SPF RFCs, i.e. cannot strictly be used for SPF validation by itself, but...
> So here is the problem: > > 1. An upstream SPF RFC-compliant check may not necessarily include what DMARC requires (e.g. a HELO SPF check passes, SPF validation passes,...
This issue was opened in 2018. Today, August 2020, the patched file has dramatically changed. Can you close this issue?
Can you rebase the patch against the last release?
Try this: sed -i 's/gcc /clang /' configure.ac
I think that dnf should use a single local database, instead of allowing users to have their own local version.
Since dnf demands su privileges to install packages, and rightly so, then perhaps dnf should be moved to /usr/sbin, also solving the problem here described. More explicitly, a non admin...
> This thing has been integrated only since the 48 version of Firefox The value of dom.workers.maxPerDomain in FF-ESR 45.3.0 is 20.