Regarding the statement Florian.Kunkel--- via mailop wrote: > unsigned messages, unaligned or messages failing validation otherwise, will be rejected while in SMTP session.
Can you tell us what the error message will be or will it be the standard, 'A problem occurred. (Ask your postmaster for help or to contact t...@rx.t-online.de to clarify.'? Tracey On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 5:46 PM <mailop-requ...@mailop.org> wrote: > Send mailop mailing list submissions to > mailop@mailop.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > mailop-requ...@mailop.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > mailop-ow...@mailop.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of mailop digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: DKIM+DMARC at t-online.de (Deutsche Telekom's ISP > branche) (Luke) > 2. Re: DKIM+DMARC at t-online.de (Deutsche Telekom's ISP > branche) (florian.kun...@telekom.de) > 3. Re: DKIM+DMARC at t-online.de (Deutsche Telekom's ISP > branche) (Bob Proulx) > 4. Re: [EXTERNAL] Comcast contact (Mike Reed) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:12:16 -0700 > From: Luke <lukemarti...@gmail.com> > To: mailop@mailop.org > Subject: Re: [mailop] DKIM+DMARC at t-online.de (Deutsche Telekom's > ISP branche) > Message-ID: > <CAHUWagO+HJJGv2g5TtYgCiFn1s= > qmeagv2zlych2m-wcems...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Has anyone gotten a firm answer on these scenarios yet? > > 5321.from: boun...@srv12.example.com > 5322.from: cont...@example.com > > The vast majority of our customers will have a subdomain on the 5321 from > that isn't present on the 5322 from. I'd like to know if this is a problem. > > I'd also like to hear confirmation that messages with 2 DKIM signatures > will still "pass" if one matches the 5322 and one doesn't. > > @Florian: How will T-Online handle these two scenarios? > > Cheers, > Luke > > On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 6:22 AM Matt Gilbert via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> > wrote: > > > Hi Florian, > > > > Do you have this information posted anywhere online such as in a blog > post > > or support article? > > > > The information shared in this mailing list is a little disjointed and > > difficult to follow, so having an article that we can reference that > > includes the precise requirements you're establishing, and examples would > > be very helpful. Also, do you have a date for when you are going to begin > > enforcing this new policy? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Matt Gilbert > > - Deliverability Engineer > > - Mailchimp > > > > On Apr 6, 2021, at 5:36 AM, Florian.Kunkel--- via mailop < > > mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > > > > ! > > * to all those sending email without their very own static IP-Address, > > * and all newly set up MTA infrastructure > > ... especially ESPs using IP pools professionally for their numerous > > customers' mail. > > ! > > > > As you might already have observed we are evaluating DKIM signatures @ > > t-online.de for a while now. > > We are starting to expect aforementioned IP infrastructure to have all > > messages DKIM signed conforming DMARC, so header from and mail from must > be > > aligned. > > unsigned messages, unaligned or messages failing validation otherwise, > > will be rejected while in SMTP session. > > > > worst come first > > Expect this procedure to hit you the earlier, the more traffic we are > > already used to reject from your infrastructure. > > > > Do not expect DMARC reports anytime soon. > > Equally we won't check for DMARC policies at the moment; ... but p=reject > > could become an option. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Florian > > E-Mail Engineering > > > > Deutsche Telekom AG > > Deutsche-Telekom-Allee 9, 64295 Darmstadt, Germany > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mailop mailing list > > mailop@mailop.org > > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mailop mailing list > > mailop@mailop.org > > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > https://list.mailop.org/private/mailop/attachments/20210412/a05a93c4/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 19:37:12 +0000 > From: <florian.kun...@telekom.de> > To: <lukemarti...@gmail.com>, <mailop@mailop.org> > Subject: Re: [mailop] DKIM+DMARC at t-online.de (Deutsche Telekom's > ISP branche) > Message-ID: > < > fr2p281mb04669027239d92981bb26e88e9...@fr2p281mb0466.deup281.prod.outlook.com > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi Luke, *! > > / > Has anyone gotten a firm answer on these scenarios yet? > 5321.from: mailto:boun...@srv12.example.com > 5322.from: mailto:cont...@example.com > The vast majority of our customers will have a subdomain on the 5321 from > that isn't present on the 5322 from. I'd like to know if this is a problem. > \ > > you are asking for non strict alignment? ... yes that should be ok, as > long it's a subdomain to your domain (and not to a public suffix). > at least I'm not jet aware of an abusive scenario so far. > > > / > I'd also like to hear confirmation that messages with 2 DKIM signatures > will still "pass" if one matches the 5322 and one doesn't. > \ > > we'll love if one signature matches both from; 5321 AND 5322. > additional valid signatures welcome, ideally matching the sending > infrastructure. > > hth > > Florian > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:08:49 -0600 > From: Bob Proulx <b...@proulx.com> > To: mailop@mailop.org > Subject: Re: [mailop] DKIM+DMARC at t-online.de (Deutsche Telekom's > ISP branche) > Message-ID: <20210412140539346237...@bob.proulx.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Florian.Kunkel--- via mailop wrote: > > unsigned messages, unaligned or messages failing validation otherwise, > will be rejected while in SMTP session. > > There are many questions about what will actually be implemented. It > would be extremely useful if t-online.de provided an automated robot > testing address to which email tests could be conducted. Being able > to test this to an automated robot address would help the community > understand the restrictions being placed there. > > Bob > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 22:31:12 +0100 > From: Mike Reed <mikeree...@gmail.com> > To: mailop@mailop.org > Subject: Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Comcast contact > Message-ID: > < > cacwkm_or4+iiycgkywkaiukvfp+cof9dnbwq3ypk2yc77ax...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi, > > Thank you both Keith and Alex for your replies. I am very grateful. > > Kind regards, > Mike > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > https://list.mailop.org/private/mailop/attachments/20210412/6d975a06/attachment.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > > > ------------------------------ > > End of mailop Digest, Vol 9, Issue 17 > ************************************* >
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
