On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 6:51 AM Florian.Kunkel--- via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> we don't care of DNS SPF RRs for authentication.
>
Are you referring in this statement to the deprecated (type 99) SPF
resource records? And/or are you talking about SPF records in TXT RRs (type
16)?
>Fro
October will be too soon to have any meaningful results, but February might
be more reasonable.
--Kurt
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 5:50 AM Sidsel Jensen via mailop
wrote:
> Hi peeps
>
> I read today at
> https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/g-suite/gsuite-security-updates-for-gmail-meet-chat-and-
Leaving aside the discussion about Gmail specifics (which has been
adequately answered by others)...
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 8:08 AM Benoit Panizzon via mailop
wrote:
>
> So at the moment I'm only using DMARC with SPF. According to my
> reading on how DMARC works, if no DKIM record is published,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:43 PM Michael Peddemors via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> On 2020-01-23 3:26 p.m., Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
> > Or at the very least, hover over should show all the details.
>
> How long do I have to hover my finger over the screen before it shows
> the detai
It's also possible that they won't accept overly broad SPF assertions. Some
people around the mail community have proposed that overly broad (details
to be defined) assertions should be ignored or used as an abuse indicator
in themselves. The extreme case would be the "+all" assertion :-)
--Kurt
Are you seeing any significant portion of these messages bearing the
Form-Sub header? (documented in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levine-mailbomb-header-01)
--Kurt
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 10:19 AM rps462 via mailop
wrote:
> We've seen a big spike in list bombing in the last few weeks. Indi
Sealing at all would be a good start - doing it correctly really helps too
:-)
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 8:58 AM Seth Blank via mailop
wrote:
> Thank you!
>
> Now we just need to get this list Sealing properly ;-)
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 2:02 AM Sidsel Jensen via mailop <
> mailop@mailop.org>
It's all refuse to me :-)
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 2:24 PM Thomas Walter via mailop
wrote:
>
>
> On 28.06.19 16:41, Brielle via mailop wrote:
> > The amount of people who treat the Spam button as a Delete button is
> staggering.
>
> This is even more difficult with users who speak a different lan
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 8:43 PM Bill Cole via mailop
wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2019, at 21:51, John Levine via mailop wrote:
>
> > Just to be clear, we all understand that these funky DKIM signatures
> > have nothing to do with the reason that Google is rejecting mailop
> > messages, right?
>
> I think
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 10:41 AM John Capo via mailop
wrote:
> On Mon, April 22, 2019 11:31, John Leslie wrote:
> > I got a surprise trying to confirm a dental appointment
> >
> >
> > status=SOFTBOUNCE (host alt2.aspmx.l.google.com[172.217.192.26] said:
> 550-5.7.1 This message does
> > not have
One of about 5 hyphenated *marriott* domains that I have received mail from
over the last year :-P
--Kurt
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 4:03 PM Matt Vernhout wrote:
> Email-Marriott.com is their normal sending domain. It has been for years.
>
> ~
> Matt
>
> > On Nov 30, 2018, at 17:26, John Levine w
https://news.marriott.com/2018/11/marriott-announces-starwood-guest-reservation-database-security-incident/
Sadly, they are using a cousin domain for the mailing (according to their
FAQ "How will I know that the email notification I receive is from
Marriott?"):
We want you to be confident that t
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:33 PM Benjamin BILLON wrote:
> > if the email isn't opened, or there is no show of interest over the
> course of the past 3 - 6 months ... It's mailing malpractice
>
> . . .
>
> But there are also those emails that we receive and never read, but that
> we want to keep a
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 1:18 PM Michael Wise via mailop
wrote:
> When will "we" start signing Received: headers?
>
Probably never - that's why there's ARC instead :-)
--Kurt
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Laura Atkins
wrote:
>
> On Jul 23, 2018, at 1:30 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 20:16, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> On Jul 21, 2018, at 1:28 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> [...]
> Otherwise we keep weakening DMARC to a point where it is not usef
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:18 PM, Autumn Tyr-Salvia
wrote:
>
>
> ... I have lately had some customers with greater-than-usual issues
> relating to ... messages that get forwarded, where the forwarding system is
> changing headers to the point that they break DKIM
>
Aside from this being a great o
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Glendon Solsberry wrote:
> https://github.com/imapsync/imapsync
>
> I do believe it requires knowledge of the users passwords on both systems.
>
> Note specifically the "HUGE MIGRATION" section.
>
I can vouch for imapsync. It was used to migrate a very huge numbe
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Philip Paeps wrote:
>
> Are there any published recommendations on how frequently one should
> rotate DKIM keys?
>
Yes:
https://www.m3aawg.org/documents/en/m3aawg-dkim-key-rotation-best-common-practices
There's an update coming soon but the frequency recommendat
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Al Iverson
wrote:
>
> In your example - you have two periods in a row. This is widely
> understood to be disallowed.
>
> http://serverfault.com/questions/395766/are-two-
> periods-allowed-in-the-local-part-of-an-email-address
Or just quote the localpart and then
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
> On 13/12/2016 21:41, Eric Henson wrote:
>
>> Google's spam system--as published in their whitepaper some years
>> ago--penalizes email when users mark the emails as spam. So if I mark that
>> email as spam without reading it, then the next guy
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Benoit Panizzon
wrote:
> it looks like especial spam bots are slow in picking up the right DNS
>
That's a feature, not a bug.
Some years ago when changing the inbound gateways for a major North
American mailbox provider, we ran a trial for about three weeks on a
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 9:33 PM, John Levine wrote:
> >> I wasn’t sure if there is a specific
> >> reason the preference is called out in the RFC.
>
> We wanted something consistent.
>
> >0 is the lowest preference MX and will therefore be tried first,
> hopefully overriding any other higher pref
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:10 AM, wrote:
> The ORT session requirement or
> question never wanted to solve this completely different issue at all.
>
> Every other solution that came up in this discussion, run down to
> possible pathes:
>
> 1# much more complex idea, that tries to solve a lot more
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Joel Beckham wrote:
> Are there any negative consequences to consider before excluding
> message-id from our signature?
>
> ...found that Securence / usinternet.com (A forwarder) gets a measurable
> percentage of our mail and modifies the message-id in the process
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>
> Some explanation for my deep curiosity Mailman (which I hack on
> here and there) and other MLMs had problems in the past because
> Mailman modifies the body and appends a footer (as seen on this list).
> So the advice, years ago, wa
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Kurt Andersen (b)
> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> >>
> >> It's not problematic, but since only 1 signature at a time can be
>
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
> >
> > DKIM is designed to support multiple signatures. There are many
> operational
> > reasons why having two signatures may be useful (reputation & FBL,
> reputation
> > migration, au
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> > On Apr 30, 2016, at 10:29 AM,
> wrote:
> >
> > Is this worth bringing up to the appropriate IETF group? Perhaps it
> could be errata for RFC 7208 Section 5.4?
>
> I think so, yes. The additions to that section over 4408 really don't m
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Kurt Andersen (b)
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Apr 29, 2016, at 9:52 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
>> >
>> > I also removed 'mx' because this tool
>> >
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> > On Apr 29, 2016, at 9:52 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> >
> > I also removed 'mx' because this tool
> > (http://vamsoft.com/support/tools/spf-policy-tester) was failing on
> pulling
> > the for each of the domain's four MX records. Try
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Kurt Andersen (b)
> wrote:
> >
> > While there have been options for mailing lists to "wrap" email
> > conversations for a long time, many list administrators and pa
+arc-discuss
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>
> This has a feeling of "cart before the horse". :-) Mailman, and
> presumably other list mangers, now "wrap" dmarc'ed emails before
> forwarding, where's the value-add for ARC?
>
Jim,
While there have been options for mail
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Matthew Black
wrote:
> Would it be safe to say the ADMD is a nebulous term that is difficult to
> precisely define?
Quite so.
--Kurt
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listin
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Matthew Black
wrote:
> *SINK*, used in Section 2.1.4 (paragraph 2). It appears to have a
> mathematical meaning that does not appear as one the 40 definitions in my
> dictionary.
Think plumbing or electronics, not math:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_s
Matthew,
I would suggest talking to the folks at Agari and Dmarcian (both are linked
from dmarc.org/resources). I intentionally kept the presentation away from
endorsing any particular vendors - partly because they change over time and
partly because I think that's the right thing to do at a gener
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
wrote:
> And if you don't want to receive mail on that domain either ..
>
> example.com.MX 0 .
>
> Yeah, mx zero dot.
>
> There's an old rfc that never got beyond draft stage that explains it all,
> but rfc or no rfc, it works fine.
>
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Aaron C. de Bruyn
wrote:
> On the note of trying to be a good netzin, should I publish a SPF
> record for a domain that should never be used to send e-mail?
>
> Would "v=spf1 -all" cause milters to reject all mail from the domain?
>
Referring to the M3AAWG BCP for
37 matches
Mail list logo
