On 5/16/24 7:36 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
I think a lot of us have nanog whitelisted or otherwise special cased.
I don't and gmail is my backend. That's trivial falsification that lack
of an SPF records alone will cause gmail rejects.
Mike
Also, it's been pumping out list mail for decades and I expect has a
close to zero complaint rate so even without the SPF ths IPs it sends
from have a good reputation.
On Thu, 16 May 2024, Scott Q. wrote:
I'm surprised nobody noticed for close to 10 days. I was away
from work and upon coming back I saw the little discussion there was ,
in my Spam folder.
On Thursday, 16/05/2024 at 18:56 John R. Levine wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024, William Herrin wrote:
The message content (including the message headers) is theoretically
not used for SPF validation. In practice, some SPF validators don't
have direct access to the SMTP session so they rely on the SMTP
session placing the envelope sender in the Return-path header.
But that wasn't the problem here, the SPF record was just
gone. Oops.
I see that the SPF record is back and seems have the correct addresses
so we can now return to our previously scheduled flamage.
