Re: [mailop] Did Google become stricter about RFC 5322?

[Robert L Mathews via mailop]

On 7/18/22 4:45 PM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
Are they using Windows Mail to send mail through your service via 
message submission?


Adding a message-id header is a SHOULD in that case: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6409#page-14 


If you're just forwarding, then yes, it's unfortunate.


I see both situations in my logs. I guess I'll fix what I can and tell 
the rest of the people that doesn't work anymore. 


--
Robert L Mathews
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Did Google become stricter about RFC 5322?

[Marcel Becker via mailop]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 16:27 Robert L Mathews via mailop 
wrote:

Anyone else seeing the same thing? Now I'm in the position of having to
> either start adding missing Message-ID headers, which people online
> recommend against because it potentially breaks DKIM, or telling people
>   Windows Mail no longer works to send to Gmail. Neither is ideal.


In your case, whoever is signing the email, could / should also add a
message-id header if missing. No?

- Marcel
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Did Google become stricter about RFC 5322?

[Suresh Ramasubramanian via mailop]

The thing about dkim is that you’re supposed to sign mail AFTER adding 
corporate disclaimers, fixing missing headers and what not.

Go ahead and fix whatever missing header you can - it’s all good

--srs

From: mailop  on behalf of Robert L Mathews via 
mailop 
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 4:40:59 AM
To: mailop@mailop.org 
Subject: Re: [mailop] Did Google become stricter about RFC 5322?

On 7/13/22 12:31 AM, Philip Paeps via mailop wrote:
> In the past couple of days, I'm seeing an uptick in rejects from Gmail
> as follows:
>
> >Our system has detected that this message is not RFC 5322 compliant.

Similar to this, some our customers complained that messages sent to
Gmail have been bouncing since June 15 with:

550-5.7.1 [ip_redacted] Messages missing a valid messageId header are not
550 5.7.1 accepted.

The messages indeed do not have a "Message-ID" header; they're being
sent from the Windows 10 built-in "Mail" app.

I'm a little surprised that the Windows Mail app doesn't include a
Message-ID, but
 says it's
only a SHOULD, not a MUST.

Anyone else seeing the same thing? Now I'm in the position of having to
either start adding missing Message-ID headers, which people online
recommend against because it potentially breaks DKIM, or telling people
  Windows Mail no longer works to send to Gmail. Neither is ideal.

--
Robert L Mathews
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Did Google become stricter about RFC 5322?

[Brandon Long via mailop]

Are they using Windows Mail to send mail through your service via message
submission?

Adding a message-id header is a SHOULD in that case:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6409#page-14

If you're just forwarding, then yes, it's unfortunate.

Brandon

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 4:24 PM Robert L Mathews via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:

> On 7/13/22 12:31 AM, Philip Paeps via mailop wrote:
> > In the past couple of days, I'm seeing an uptick in rejects from Gmail
> > as follows:
> >
> > >Our system has detected that this message is not RFC 5322 compliant.
>
> Similar to this, some our customers complained that messages sent to
> Gmail have been bouncing since June 15 with:
>
> 550-5.7.1 [ip_redacted] Messages missing a valid messageId header are not
> 550 5.7.1 accepted.
>
> The messages indeed do not have a "Message-ID" header; they're being
> sent from the Windows 10 built-in "Mail" app.
>
> I'm a little surprised that the Windows Mail app doesn't include a
> Message-ID, but
>  says it's
> only a SHOULD, not a MUST.
>
> Anyone else seeing the same thing? Now I'm in the position of having to
> either start adding missing Message-ID headers, which people online
> recommend against because it potentially breaks DKIM, or telling people
>   Windows Mail no longer works to send to Gmail. Neither is ideal.
>
> --
> Robert L Mathews
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
>
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Did Google become stricter about RFC 5322?

[Robert L Mathews via mailop]

On 7/13/22 12:31 AM, Philip Paeps via mailop wrote:
In the past couple of days, I'm seeing an uptick in rejects from Gmail 
as follows:


>Our system has detected that this message is not RFC 5322 compliant.


Similar to this, some our customers complained that messages sent to 
Gmail have been bouncing since June 15 with:


550-5.7.1 [ip_redacted] Messages missing a valid messageId header are not
550 5.7.1 accepted.

The messages indeed do not have a "Message-ID" header; they're being 
sent from the Windows 10 built-in "Mail" app.


I'm a little surprised that the Windows Mail app doesn't include a 
Message-ID, but 
 says it's 
only a SHOULD, not a MUST.


Anyone else seeing the same thing? Now I'm in the position of having to 
either start adding missing Message-ID headers, which people online 
recommend against because it potentially breaks DKIM, or telling people 
 Windows Mail no longer works to send to Gmail. Neither is ideal.


--
Robert L Mathews
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] What to do with a look-alike domain used in phishing

[Carsten Schiefner via mailop]

Thomas,

shall we talk this through out of band - and you may post a summary later on, 
if you wish?

Best,

-C.
-- 
Von meiner Hängematte aus gesendet.

-Original Message-
From: Tobias Fiebig via mailop 
To: mailop@mailop.org
Sent: Mo., 18 Juli 2022 10:45
Subject: [mailop] What to do with a look-alike domain used in phishing

Heho,
~a year ago I registered a (by then) unregistered look-alike domain for a major 
European hoster, as I was receiving rather good spear-phishing from it, and it 
was, well, unregistered. (The domain is hetzners.de ). 

I setup DMARC p=reject and SPF -all, and let it be. Now, the domain keeps 
sitting around; Thing is, that dereg would most likely lead to more spam 
falling out of the domain again (or it being actually registered by some 
spammer), which is rather not so nice to the Internet as a whole. The hoster is 
not interested in receiving it from me (free of charge etc.; Offered to just 
send them the authcode). 

Now, what can I ethically do with the domain? I would kind of prefer it going 
to some org. that actually makes an effort in drying out domains used like 
this; Does somebody have a suggestion/contact whom to ask?

With best regards,
Tobias

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] DKIM temperror from Microsoft on SFMC delegated domains

[Marco Franceschetti via mailop]

Dear Mailop,

I am seeing an unusual amount of DKIM "temperror" reports from Microsoft for 
these two domains (only):
preventivo.6sicuro.it
news.6sicuro.it

The sources of this information are:

  *   Headers of emails received at Hotmail.com with temperror as DKIM 
Authentication results
  *   DMARC reports for both domains showing only 80% valid DKIM checks.

It was like this the first SalesForce Marketing Cloud sendings, end of June.
I have requested Microsoft support but after the usual contact practices, they 
said they don't do DNS error checks.
On SFMC side, they suggest contacting Microsoft.

As far as my DNS checks go, I am not able to spot weakness on the domains.

Any suggestions/contacts?

Thanks

Marco Franceschetti
Head of Deliverability | ContactLab
M. +39 331 1717 978 | T. +39 0228311887
marco.francesche...@contactlab.com

Via Natale Battaglia, 12 | Milano
contactlab.com/it


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] What to do with a look-alike domain used in phishing

[Tobias Fiebig via mailop]

Heho,
~a year ago I registered a (by then) unregistered look-alike domain for a major 
European hoster, as I was receiving rather good spear-phishing from it, and it 
was, well, unregistered. (The domain is hetzners.de ). 

I setup DMARC p=reject and SPF -all, and let it be. Now, the domain keeps 
sitting around; Thing is, that dereg would most likely lead to more spam 
falling out of the domain again (or it being actually registered by some 
spammer), which is rather not so nice to the Internet as a whole. The hoster is 
not interested in receiving it from me (free of charge etc.; Offered to just 
send them the authcode). 

Now, what can I ethically do with the domain? I would kind of prefer it going 
to some org. that actually makes an effort in drying out domains used like 
this; Does somebody have a suggestion/contact whom to ask?

With best regards,
Tobias

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop