In Denmark we have a somewhat large (10K+ domains) anti-virus/spam provider
breaking DKIM signatures.
They break DKIM signatures on incoming email by adding a Virus scanned by
line to the body of the email.
Not sure how to fix this, but perhaps some day they'll get tired of my
bi-monthly
In this case it's not a header, but a line added to the body of the email
Br Henrik Schack
On Sep 15, 2014 8:51 PM, Tomki dmarci...@tomki.com wrote:
Henrik,
I think that the fact of virus scanning is more commonly just another
header in the message, which would not break a properly created
On Sep 15, 2014, at 7:39 PM, Henrik Schack henrik.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
In Denmark we have a somewhat large (10K+ domains) anti-virus/spam provider
breaking DKIM signatures.
They break DKIM signatures on incoming email by adding a Virus scanned by
line to the body of the email.
No it's not at all a free service. But they advertise anyway :-(
Br
Henrik
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Franck Martin fmar...@linkedin.com wrote:
On Sep 15, 2014, at 7:39 PM, Henrik Schack henrik.sch...@gmail.com
wrote:
In Denmark we have a somewhat large (10K+ domains) anti-virus/spam
Though I would never put such a thing in a standards document, OpenDKIM
does have the capability to rewrite arriving header fields prior to
signing/verifying to overcome things like this. Your ESP's verifier could
be trained to ignore the added line prior to verifying, or better yet, do
DKIM
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
wrote:
I can (an plan to) write code that leverages their X-Original-To. I'd
rather have something standardized, but it's not essential for me to solve
the problem I'm having. For the broader internet, I'm not so sure.
On Monday, September 15, 2014 12:46:02 Brandon Long wrote:
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
wrote:
I can (an plan to) write code that leverages their X-Original-To. I'd
rather have something standardized, but it's not essential for me to solve
the
How will most mail clients know not to display it if it's made part of the
body?
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Terry Zink tz...@exchange.microsoft.com
wrote:
Having the Virus scanned by xxx defeats the purpose of advertising
because most mail clients won't display it, and the point of
Er, what I meant was this:
Having the Virus scanned by xxx ***in a header*** defeats the purpose of
advertising since most clients won’t display it. A/V filters put those taglines
in there to advertise, not just to tell the mail client that their mail has
been scanned.
-- Terry
From: Murray
On 9/15/2014 5:26 PM, Terry Zink wrote:
Having the Virus scanned by xxx ***in a header*** defeats the purpose
of advertising since most clients won’t display it. A/V filters put
those taglines in there to advertise, not just to tell the mail client
that their mail has been scanned.
And
On 9/15/2014 7:00 PM, Roland Turner wrote:
As I understand it, most advertisers maintain a nuclear ambiguity
about the effectiveness of their activities, making measurements rather
difficult to obtain.
Every presentation I've seen from usability (human factors, UX, ...)
specialist has said
On 09/16/2014 11:42 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 9/15/2014 7:00 PM, Roland Turner wrote:
As I understand it, most advertisers maintain a nuclear ambiguity
about the effectiveness of their activities, making measurements rather
difficult to obtain.
Every presentation I've seen from usability
12 matches
Mail list logo
