Quoting "Peter", who wrote on 2019-10-09 at 23:16 Uhr +1300:
Wrong test that's the smtpd banner. The EHLO banner is specified in
the smtp_helo_name setting and is sent when postfix makes a client
connection to another server, not when you make a connection to
postfix.
Oh, I should have known
On 9/10/19 11:02 PM, martin f krafft wrote:
Quoting "Peter", who wrote on 2019-10-09 at 10:54 Uhr +1300:
Does ambassador.madduck.net match the EHLO banner as well?
Yes, of course. ;)
% swaks -q EHLO -s ambassador.madduck.net
=== Trying ambassador.madduck.net:25...
=== Connected to ambassador.
Quoting "Peter", who wrote on 2019-10-09 at 10:54 Uhr +1300:
Does ambassador.madduck.net match the EHLO banner as well?
Yes, of course. ;)
% swaks -q EHLO -s ambassador.madduck.net
=== Trying ambassador.madduck.net:25...
=== Connected to ambassador.madduck.net.
<- 220-ambassador.madduck.net E
On 8/10/19 6:02 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
amazon have around 80 ipv4 adresses in there spf, is this nearly as
good as +all :(
Of course not. The entire IPv4 address space is approximately 4.2
billion IPs, 800,000 is only a tiny fraction of that, it's hardly
comparable to +all.
why spf
On 8/10/19 5:48 AM, martin f krafft wrote:
One of the actual addresses in question is 2001:a60:902f::bcae:fda6
which resolves to ambassador.madduck.net., which resolves to
2001:a60:902f::bcae:fda6. So I think I can tick off the "fcrdns"
requirement.
Does ambassador.madduck.net match the EHLO
Quoting "Robert Schetterer", who wrote on 2019-10-07 at 18:21 Uhr +0200:
Also a wide bug is not to include the ipv6 stuff in SPF, did you
checked this, in the past creating a extra transport for google
only via ipv4 was helpfull too
At least for madduck.net, I have SPF set to "v=spf1 ?all", wh
martin f krafft skrev den 2019-10-07 18:48:
I really appreciate all your eyeballs. I really do!
http://multirbl.valli.org/ good place to test all is ok
Robert Schetterer skrev den 2019-10-07 18:21:
Also a wide bug is not to include the ipv6 stuff in SPF, did you
checked this, in the past creating a extra transport for google only
via ipv4 was helpfull too
amazon have around 80 ipv4 adresses in there spf, is this nearly as
good as +all :(
Quoting "Allen Coates", who wrote on 2019-10-07 at 10:15 Uhr +0100:
Only one set of double-colons is allowed in an IPv6 address. It expands to an
unspecified number of zeros; doing it twice results in ambiguity.
Quoting "Wietse Venema", who wrote on 2019-10-07 at 07:00 Uhr -0400:
The form "2
Am 07.10.19 um 07:11 schrieb martin f krafft:
Quoting "Wietse Venema", who wrote on 2019-10-06 at 19:13 Uhr -0400:
Perhaps the SMTP client IP address 2001:db8:bad::cafe:: has no PTR
record (or the name does not resolve to 2001:db8:bad::cafe::).
Good point, but the address has a PTR record to a
Jaroslaw Rafa:
> Dnia 7.10.2019 o godz. 23:54:41 Peter pisze:
> >
> > We get this question on IRC a lot as well, it's a common problem.
> > The generic answer I always give is this:
> >
> > If you're having problems getting your mail received by major ESPs
> > you should first check your fcrdns*
Dnia 7.10.2019 o godz. 23:54:41 Peter pisze:
>
> We get this question on IRC a lot as well, it's a common problem.
> The generic answer I always give is this:
>
> If you're having problems getting your mail received by major ESPs
> you should first check your fcrdns*, then make sure you have SPF
On 8/10/19 12:04 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
Dnia 7.10.2019 o godz. 23:54:41 Peter pisze:
Also sign up for ESP-specific programs such as
feedback loops, Google postmaster tools and Microsoft's SNDS. Check
the individual postmaster pages for each ESP that you're having
problems with to make sure th
Dnia 7.10.2019 o godz. 23:54:41 Peter pisze:
> Also sign up for ESP-specific programs such as
> feedback loops, Google postmaster tools and Microsoft's SNDS. Check
> the individual postmaster pages for each ESP that you're having
> problems with to make sure that you're in compliance with all of
>
martin f krafft:
> Quoting "Wietse Venema", who wrote on 2019-10-06 at 19:13 Uhr -0400:
> >Perhaps the SMTP client IP address 2001:db8:bad::cafe:: has no PTR
> >record (or the name does not resolve to 2001:db8:bad::cafe::).
>
> Good point, but the address has a PTR record to a name with an
On 7/10/19 5:36 AM, martin f krafft wrote:
Folks,
I hope this is not too off-topic, but I figure this is the best mailing
list because we're probably not in this boat alone, wherein we're
annoyed (very) and a bit helpless about Google. I have to ask here,
because Google of course doesn't care
On 07/10/2019 06:11, martin f krafft wrote:
> Quoting "Wietse Venema", who wrote on 2019-10-06 at 19:13 Uhr -0400:
>> Perhaps the SMTP client IP address 2001:db8:bad::cafe:: has no PTR record (or
>> the name does not resolve to 2001:db8:bad::cafe::).
>
> Good point, but the address has a PTR re
Quoting "Wietse Venema", who wrote on 2019-10-06 at 19:13 Uhr -0400:
Perhaps the SMTP client IP address 2001:db8:bad::cafe:: has no PTR
record (or the name does not resolve to 2001:db8:bad::cafe::).
Good point, but the address has a PTR record to a name with an
record pointing to the addr
martin f krafft:
> Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass (test mode)
> header.i=@example.org header.s=2015-11-14 header.b=T7jbyqDv;
> spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of
> madd...@example.org designates 2001:db8:bad::cafe:: as
> permitted sender) smtp.
Dnia 6.10.2019 o godz. 12:50:27 Bill Cole pisze:
>
> The MailOp list is probably a better choice:
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
I have the very same issue as the OP, thanks for pointing to that list!
--
Regards,
Jaroslaw Rafa
r...@rafa.eu.org
--
"In a milli
martin f krafft skrev den 2019-10-06 19:03:
Quoting "Bill Cole", who wrote on 2019-10-06 at 12:50 Uhr -0400:
The MailOp list is probably a better choice:
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Thanks! I didn't know about that. Will re-ask there. Sorry for the
noise.
not
Quoting "Bill Cole", who wrote on 2019-10-06 at 12:50 Uhr -0400:
The MailOp list is probably a better choice:
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Thanks! I didn't know about that. Will re-ask there. Sorry for the
noise.
--
@martinkrafft | https://riot.im/app/#/room/#m
Quoting "Benny Pedersen", who wrote on 2019-10-06 at 18:44 Uhr +0200:
dkkim running in test mode ?, see if domain have t= in dns
Yes, on some domains it's still running in test mode. Is that enough
reason for Google admins to flick us the finger?
--
@martinkrafft | https://riot.im/app/#/room
Bill Cole skrev den 2019-10-06 18:50:
The MailOp list is probably a better choice:
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
NET::ERR_CERT_SYMANTEC_LEGACY
Actual Google mail admins respond to such queries there. Really.
if recipient keeps mails in spam folder how could go
On 6 Oct 2019, at 12:36, martin f krafft wrote:
Folks,
I hope this is not too off-topic, but I figure this is the best
mailing list because we're probably not in this boat alone, wherein
we're annoyed (very) and a bit helpless about Google. I have to ask
here, because Google of course doesn'
martin f krafft skrev den 2019-10-06 18:36:
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass (test mode)
header.i=@example.org header.s=2015-11-14 header.b=T7jbyqDv;
spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of
madd...@example.org designates 2001:db8:bad::cafe:: as
permitte
Folks,
I hope this is not too off-topic, but I figure this is the best
mailing list because we're probably not in this boat alone, wherein
we're annoyed (very) and a bit helpless about Google. I have to ask
here, because Google of course doesn't care about us.
We operate several postfix mail
27 matches
Mail list logo