On 2013-5-22 3:08 , Philip Prindeville wrote:
Does everyone implement ADSP? Even though it's apparently been an RFC for 4
years…
Seriously, don't go there. Hardly anyone implements ADSP. Certainly none of the
big mail receivers, where most big ISPs do support DMARC...
Note that you should
On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:15:13 +0200
Jan-Pieter Cornet joh...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Exactly what is the point behind DMARC?
Try talking to an organization that has a serious phishing problem.
Therefore, why reinvent the wheel?
I'm sure glad someone did, or we would all still be using this:
From: Renaud Pascal renaud.pas...@atos.net
well, after all wasn't SPF an idea from Microsoft, a gang of squares
thinking they're geeks...
No, that was CallerID, later SenderID. SPF was from Meng Wong at
POBOX.com, based on the work of others. The MARID working group tried to
merge SenderID
On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:35:28 +0200
Renaud Pascal renaud.pas...@atos.net wrote:
well, after all wasn't SPF an idea from Microsoft, a gang of squares
thinking they're geeks...
SPF was created by Meng Wong of pobox.com, not by Microsoft. Microsoft
had it's own invention called Caller ID for
On May 13, 2013, at 2:15 PM, David F. Skoll d...@roaringpenguin.com wrote:
[snip]
It's not the same thing. My code would convert:
foo\n to foo
whereas yours would leave it as foo\n
By the way, is the record:
$ORIGIN mydomain.tld
_domainkey IN TXT
On May 9, 2013, at 3:30 PM, David F. Skoll d...@roaringpenguin.com wrote:
It is very easy to add. Use the Mail::DKIM::Signer and Mail::DKIM::TextWrap
modules from CPAN. This is in our filter and we call it to sign a message
from filter_end:
Thanks for sharing that.
Couple of questions:
On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:01:57 -0600
Philip Prindeville philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com wrote:
Couple of questions: Is the SHA computed over the header or the
entirety of the message?
Entire message.
$dkim-PRINT($entity-as_string());
I'm not sure how that would handle SMTP line endings.
On Thu, 09 May 2013 21:43:43 -0400
Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com wrote:
Thanks for that info. Out of interest, it doesn't look like you use
ADSP. Any reason why or why not?
No reason; just never bothered. And I think ADSP has been downgraded
to experimental because DMARC is taking
On Thu, 9 May 2013 12:14:40 -0600
Philip Prindeville philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com wrote:
And DKIM support for verification is in SpamAssassin, but I'm not
seeing any support for signing in MimeDefang.
It is very easy to add. Use the Mail::DKIM::Signer and Mail::DKIM::TextWrap
modules
On 5/9/2013 5:30 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
KeyFile =
/etc/ssl/private/roaringpenguin.com.dkim.2048.key);
Thanks for that info. Out of interest, it doesn't look like you use
ADSP. Any reason why or why not?
I'd also love to know more about how you would recommend creating
On Apr 1, 2013, at 4:22 PM, Jan-Pieter Cornet joh...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Hey, I like DMARC. I've even implemented DMARC verification in MIMEDefang ;)
(the reporting bit is a stand-alone process).
Any chance of posting your changes?
I'd like to try implementing it outbound…
Thanks,
-Philip
--- On Wed, 5/8/13, Philip Prindeville philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com
wrote:
On Apr 1, 2013, at 4:22 PM, Jan-Pieter Cornet joh...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Hey, I like DMARC. I've even implemented DMARC
verification in MIMEDefang ;) (the reporting bit is a
stand-alone process).
Any chance of
On Mar 27, 2013, at 11:48 AM, David F. Skoll d...@roaringpenguin.com wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:22:37 -0500
Ben Kamen bka...@benjammin.net wrote:
Now that we've see/talked some stats on SPF... I'd be interested to
know what anyone might have to offer on DKIM usefulness.
DKIM is
On Wed, 1 May 2013 12:58:56 -0600
Philip Prindeville philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 2013, at 11:48 AM, David F. Skoll d...@roaringpenguin.com
wrote:
DKIM is useful for letting you know that a message has been relayed
through a responsible organization's server.
On May 1, 2013, at 1:10 PM, David F. Skoll d...@roaringpenguin.com wrote:
I used the term responsible organization in the sense intended by
DKIM. That is, Yahoo's servers (and by implication Yahoo! itself) are
definitely responsible for a message that has a valid DKIM signature
from Yahoo.
Philip Prindeville wrote:
I finally stopped accepting email from Yahoo! because I found their (now
defunct) abuse team to be worthless.
It's still there, still worthless. I recently received an email from an
(upstream) ISP as Yahoo! had complained to them that one of our sites was
sending out
--- On Wed, 5/1/13, John Halewood j...@unidec.co.uk wrote:
It's still there, still worthless. I recently received an
email from an (upstream) ISP as Yahoo! had complained to
them that one of our sites was sending out spam. Looking
at the message, it turned out to be a bounce from a
On 2013-3-27 18:48 , David F. Skoll wrote:
Now that we've see/talked some stats on SPF... I'd be interested to
know what anyone might have to offer on DKIM usefulness.
The up-and-coming thing is DMARC, which will probably enjoy good press the
way SPF and DKIM did for a few years until it
Hey all,
Now that we've see/talked some stats on SPF... I'd be interested to know what
anyone might have to offer on DKIM usefulness.
-Ben
--
Ben Kamen - O.D.T., S.P.
--
eMail: b...@benjammin.net
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:22:37 -0500
Ben Kamen bka...@benjammin.net wrote:
Now that we've see/talked some stats on SPF... I'd be interested to
know what anyone might have to offer on DKIM usefulness.
DKIM is useful for letting you know that a message has been relayed
through a responsible
--- On Wed, 3/27/13, Ben Kamen bka...@benjammin.net wrote:
Now that we've see/talked some stats on SPF... I'd be
interested to know what anyone might have to offer on DKIM
usefulness.
Not widely used. Also, Yahoo, who started DK, doesn't even do its ADSP
extension coding correctly: They
21 matches
Mail list logo
