* pgndev:
> https://dmarc.org/2017/03/can-i-use-dmarc-if-i-have-only-deployed-spf/
>
> "...
> you can use DMARC with only SPF – and absolutely should, at least as far as
> enabling reporting –
> ..."
Tut, tut... Partial quotes, out of context. How desperate some of you
have become. The relevant p
https://dmarc.org/2017/03/can-i-use-dmarc-if-i-have-only-deployed-spf/
"...
you can use DMARC with only SPF – and absolutely should, at least as far as
enabling reporting –
..."
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020, 3:55 PM Ralph Seichter wrote:
> * pe...@pajamian.dhs.org:
>
> > DKIM is not required for DMAR
* pe...@pajamian.dhs.org:
> DKIM is not required for DMARC.
Now you're just being ridiculous, and have earned yourself a membership
in my killfile. "DMARC [...] builds on the widely deployed SPF and DKIM
protocols" (https://dmarc.org "What is DMARC?").
-Ralph
On 4/26/20 11:47 PM, Peter wrote:
> On 27/04/20 2:02 am, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/26/20 8:15 AM, Peter wrote:
>>> On 27/04/20 12:00 am, Richard Damon wrote:
Except that if the sender is sending from a domain with an email
policy
that effectively says, "This domain is intended to
On 27/04/20 2:02 am, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/26/20 8:15 AM, Peter wrote:
On 27/04/20 12:00 am, Richard Damon wrote:
Except that if the sender is sending from a domain with an email policy
that effectively says, "This domain is intended to send sensitive
information, please do not accept messa
On 4/26/20 10:25 PM, Peter wrote:
>
> I prefer to be able to see a full conversation rather than having to
> hunt through my Spam folder for pieces of it.
>
>
> Peter
>
The solution for the GMail user is to just add a filter for messages
from the list and set the filter to bypass the spam filter, n
On 27/04/20 1:16 am, Ralph Seichter wrote:
* pe...@pajamian.dhs.org:
People may configure strict DMARC policies for various different
reasons, may be unaware of the issues that causes and may not even
have control over the domain at all.
Lack of knowledge is not an excuse, period. Lack of con
On 4/26/20 6:41 PM, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Dnia 26.04.2020 o godz. 17:00:31 Richard Damon pisze:
>> I have never had GMail ask me to setup DMARC, they will ask you to setup
>> SPF or DKIM as a first step for delivery problems, as letting them
> Did you read https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81
Dnia 26.04.2020 o godz. 17:00:31 Richard Damon pisze:
>
> I have never had GMail ask me to setup DMARC, they will ask you to setup
> SPF or DKIM as a first step for delivery problems, as letting them
Did you read https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126 ? (That's the page
their "sender troubl
On 4/26/20 3:23 PM, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Dnia 26.04.2020 o godz. 08:00:56 Richard Damon pisze:
>> This is exactly what DMARC is intended to indicate. Configuring a domain
>> with DMARC says that it is intended that message only be accepted if
>> they come directly from the sender. It was designed
nt did not present a certificate)
(Authenticated sender: naz...@almogavers.net)
by ns.almogavers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 276F67E123C
for ; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 13:21:44 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: Gmail and spam, a request
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Refer
On 26/04/2020 13:21, Francesc Peñalvez wrote:
> I don't have the correct dkim entry in the domain?
In this post you have no dkim signature at all!
Juri
Dnia 26.04.2020 o godz. 08:00:56 Richard Damon pisze:
>
> This is exactly what DMARC is intended to indicate. Configuring a domain
> with DMARC says that it is intended that message only be accepted if
> they come directly from the sender. It was designed for things like
> Banks to be able to send
On 4/26/20 8:15 AM, Peter wrote:
> On 27/04/20 12:00 am, Richard Damon wrote:
>> Except that if the sender is sending from a domain with an email policy
>> that effectively says, "This domain is intended to send sensitive
>> information, please do not accept messages that do not come directly
>> fr
On 2020-04-26 15:16, Ralph Seichter wrote:
prefixes or message footers, meaning DKIM signatures remain intact. Any
admin who uses DMARC while not having set up DKIM correctly is asking
for trouble. I won't lift a finger to work around the incompetence of
others in this case, nor do I think this
* pe...@pajamian.dhs.org:
> People may configure strict DMARC policies for various different
> reasons, may be unaware of the issues that causes and may not even
> have control over the domain at all.
Lack of knowledge is not an excuse, period. Lack of control just means
the domain's admin needs
On 27/04/20 12:00 am, Richard Damon wrote:
Except that if the sender is sending from a domain with an email policy
that effectively says, "This domain is intended to send sensitive
information, please do not accept messages that do not come directly
from us", then it is reasonable to tell the sen
On 27/04/20 12:00 am, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/26/20 7:07 AM, Peter wrote:
On 26/04/20 10:47 pm, Benny Pedersen wrote:
talk to postmas...@almogavers.net ask for aspf not being set to
strict, also possible make fo tag on dmarc more relaxed
Except that this is a thread about what messages comi
On 26/04/20 11:26 pm, Ralph Seichter wrote:
* pe...@pajamian.dhs.org:
[...] this is a thread about what messages coming from the *list* go
to spam and what the *list* can do about it. It is not reasonable for
the mailing list owner to ask every person who's messages go to spam
because of a bad
On 4/26/20 7:07 AM, Peter wrote:
> On 26/04/20 10:47 pm, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> talk to postmas...@almogavers.net ask for aspf not being set to
>> strict, also possible make fo tag on dmarc more relaxed
>
> Except that this is a thread about what messages coming from the
> *list* go to spam and w
I don't have the correct dkim entry in the domain?
El 26/4/2020 a les 13:18, Christian ha escrit:
Sorry if this has been tested before, but I joined the list only
lately.
Have you tried the google postmaster-tools for postfix.org and
especially adding the google-site-verification TXT?
Am Sonnt
* pe...@pajamian.dhs.org:
> [...] this is a thread about what messages coming from the *list* go
> to spam and what the *list* can do about it. It is not reasonable for
> the mailing list owner to ask every person who's messages go to spam
> because of a bad DMARC policy to change the policy.
It
Sorry if this has been tested before, but I joined the list only
lately.
Have you tried the google postmaster-tools for postfix.org and
especially adding the google-site-verification TXT?
Am Sonntag, den 26.04.2020, 23:07 +1200 schrieb Peter:
> On 26/04/20 10:47 pm, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> > talk
On 26/04/20 10:47 pm, Benny Pedersen wrote:
talk to postmas...@almogavers.net ask for aspf not being set to strict,
also possible make fo tag on dmarc more relaxed
Except that this is a thread about what messages coming from the *list*
go to spam and what the *list* can do about it. It is not
On 2020-04-26 10:37, Peter Ajamian wrote:
Just noticed a couple more in my Spam today from Francesc Peñalvez.
It looks like SPF is neutral and DMARC is failing:
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com;
spf=neutral (google.com: 2604:8d00:0:1::4 is neither permitted
nor denied by bes
Just noticed a couple more in my Spam today from Francesc Peñalvez. It
looks like SPF is neutral and DMARC is failing:
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com;
spf=neutral (google.com: 2604:8d00:0:1::4 is neither permitted
nor denied by best guess record for domain of
owner-post
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:43:07PM +1100, Richard Salts wrote:
> On 23/03/2020 8:55 am, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > It is best to not modify the message headers at all, which iseffectively
> > what the Postfix list does (it adds a Sender: header which should not be
> > covered by the upstream DKI
On 23/03/2020 8:55 am, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
It is best to not modify the message headers at all, which iseffectively what
the Postfix list does (it adds a Sender: header which should not be covered by
the upstream DKIM signature).
I know the Sender header has traditionally been used by mail
On 23/03/20 11:09 am, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:03:43AM +1300, Peter wrote:
On 23/03/20 10:55 am, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
ARC signing might be helpful, but I don't think we need to do anything
at all. With just one user having issues, the problem is most likely
upstream
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:03:43AM +1300, Peter wrote:
> On 23/03/20 10:55 am, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > ARC signing might be helpful, but I don't think we need to do anything
> > at all. With just one user having issues, the problem is most likely
> > upstream.
>
> It's not just one user. I r
On 23/03/20 10:55 am, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
ARC signing might be helpful, but I don't think we need to do anything
at all. With just one user having issues, the problem is most likely
upstream.
It's not just one user. I regularly have to pluck messages from my Spam
folder coming from this l
On 23/03/20 4:23 am, Wietse Venema wrote:
Coming back to the original problem, that Gmail was flagging
Jaroslaw's non-list messages as spam. Would removing Jaroslaw's
email address from Postfix list mail have changed the 'spam'
disposition of his non-list messages? The response from Gmail staff
i
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 10:42:29AM +1300, Peter wrote:
> > That could be a hack like this (in Postfix or Majordomo):
> > - In Postfix, trigger on listmanager envelope address info
> > - Munge From: (combining original From: and listmanager envelope address
> > info).
> > - Munge Reply-To: (using
On 23/03/20 3:40 am, Wietse Venema wrote:
Would removing Jaroslaw's email address would have changed the
'spam' ruling? We don't know that without further measurements.
Right, no real way to tell. At the end of the day it's a matter of
jumping through as many hoops as we can and hope that it'
Franck MAHE:
> Hi Wietse,
>
> >> > Would it help if the postfix list used "dmarc mitigation" so that
> >> > the From header does not contain your email address:
> >>
> >> Well, in this particular case I'm seeing three messages from Jaroslaw
> >> end up in spam. Google says that all three pass DM
Am 20.03.2020 um 16:06 schrieb Wietse Venema:
Jaroslaw Rafa:
Hello all members of this list,
I have a kind request to all of you related to deliverability of my
messages. Please help.
Currently I have an issue (again; the previous one from a few months ago was
resolved) with my messages sent t
Hi Wietse,
> Would it help if the postfix list used "dmarc mitigation" so that
> the From header does not contain your email address:
Well, in this particular case I'm seeing three messages from Jaroslaw
end up in spam. Google says that all three pass DMARC and DKIM and
SPF
is neutral. Also
Peter:
> On 21/03/20 4:06 am, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Would it help if the postfix list used "dmarc mitigation" so that
> > the From header does not contain your email address:
>
> Well, in this particular case I'm seeing three messages from Jaroslaw
> end up in spam. Google says that all three
On 21/03/20 4:06 am, Wietse Venema wrote:
Would it help if the postfix list used "dmarc mitigation" so that
the From header does not contain your email address:
Well, in this particular case I'm seeing three messages from Jaroslaw
end up in spam. Google says that all three pass DMARC and DKIM
Oh Lord.
> Resending Jaroslaw Rafa's message, so that people who don't see his
> email can see it here.
>
> Apparently, Gmail considers Jaroslaw;s email address as a source
> of spam, because his postfix-users messages are sent to many people
> in a relatively short time.
>
> So if you could loo
Resending Jaroslaw Rafa's message, so that people who don't see his
email can see it here.
Apparently, Gmail considers Jaroslaw;s email address as a source
of spam, because his postfix-users messages are sent to many people
in a relatively short time.
So if you could look in your spam folder and
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 at 16:29, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Dnia 20.03.2020 o godz. 17:25:35 Benny Pedersen pisze:
> >
> > if you belive dkim is the problem at google one can disable dkim
> > signer and restest that mails is not going to spam folder at google
>
> In my case, DKIM is not the problem.
> T
Dnia 20.03.2020 o godz. 17:25:35 Benny Pedersen pisze:
>
> if you belive dkim is the problem at google one can disable dkim
> signer and restest that mails is not going to spam folder at google
In my case, DKIM is not the problem.
The problem - for Google - is that the message is from me as the s
On 2020-03-20 16:52, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
Dnia 20.03.2020 o godz. 11:06:20 Wietse Venema pisze:
Would it help if the postfix list used "dmarc mitigation" so that
the From header does not contain your email address:
From: Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-Users
Reply-To: Jaroslaw Rafa
That probably
Dnia 20.03.2020 o godz. 11:06:20 Wietse Venema pisze:
> Would it help if the postfix list used "dmarc mitigation" so that
> the From header does not contain your email address:
>
> From: Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-Users
> Reply-To: Jaroslaw Rafa
That probably could help, because Google won't see
Dnia 20.03.2020 o godz. 08:12:10 @lbutlr pisze:
> On 20 Mar 2020, at 07:34, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> > Currently I have an issue (again; the previous one from a few months ago was
> > resolved) with my messages sent to Gmail users - they are put into
> > recipients' Spam folders. I managed to actual
Jaroslaw Rafa:
> It looks like the only way to get me out of this condition is that all of
> you who have a Gmail address look in their Spam folder for my messages, and
> click "This is not spam" if you find any, to train the Google's AI that my
> messages are not spam. That's what I'm asking you.
Jaroslaw Rafa:
> Hello all members of this list,
>
> I have a kind request to all of you related to deliverability of my
> messages. Please help.
>
> Currently I have an issue (again; the previous one from a few months ago was
> resolved) with my messages sent to Gmail users - they are put into
>
On 20 Mar 2020, at 07:34, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Currently I have an issue (again; the previous one from a few months ago was
> resolved) with my messages sent to Gmail users - they are put into
> recipients' Spam folders. I managed to actually reach someone at Google,
> who told me that this is d
Benny Pedersen:
> On 2020-03-20 14:34, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
>
> > Thank you in advance!
>
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on
> localhost.junc.eu
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.1, required=5.0, Autolearn=no
> autolearn_force=no,
> LastExt=2604:8d00:0:1::4
> X-Spam-R
On 2020-03-20 14:34, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
Thank you in advance!
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on
localhost.junc.eu
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.1, required=5.0, Autolearn=no
autolearn_force=no,
LastExt=2604:8d00:0:1::4
X-Spam-Rules_score: DCC_CHECK=1.9,DKIM_I
Hello all members of this list,
I have a kind request to all of you related to deliverability of my
messages. Please help.
Currently I have an issue (again; the previous one from a few months ago was
resolved) with my messages sent to Gmail users - they are put into
recipients' Spam folders. I ma
52 matches
Mail list logo
