Quoting "Peter", who wrote on 2019-10-09 at 23:16 Uhr +1300:
Wrong test that's the smtpd banner. The EHLO banner is specified in
the smtp_helo_name setting and is sent when postfix makes a client
connection to another server, not when you make a connection to
postfix.
Oh, I should have
On 9/10/19 11:02 PM, martin f krafft wrote:
Quoting "Peter", who wrote on 2019-10-09 at 10:54 Uhr +1300:
Does ambassador.madduck.net match the EHLO banner as well?
Yes, of course. ;)
% swaks -q EHLO -s ambassador.madduck.net
=== Trying ambassador.madduck.net:25...
=== Connected to
Quoting "Peter", who wrote on 2019-10-09 at 10:54 Uhr +1300:
Does ambassador.madduck.net match the EHLO banner as well?
Yes, of course. ;)
% swaks -q EHLO -s ambassador.madduck.net
=== Trying ambassador.madduck.net:25...
=== Connected to ambassador.madduck.net.
<- 220-ambassador.madduck.net
On 8/10/19 6:02 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
amazon have around 80 ipv4 adresses in there spf, is this nearly as
good as +all :(
Of course not. The entire IPv4 address space is approximately 4.2
billion IPs, 800,000 is only a tiny fraction of that, it's hardly
comparable to +all.
why
On 8/10/19 5:48 AM, martin f krafft wrote:
One of the actual addresses in question is 2001:a60:902f::bcae:fda6
which resolves to ambassador.madduck.net., which resolves to
2001:a60:902f::bcae:fda6. So I think I can tick off the "fcrdns"
requirement.
Does ambassador.madduck.net match the EHLO
Quoting "Robert Schetterer", who wrote on 2019-10-07 at 18:21 Uhr +0200:
Also a wide bug is not to include the ipv6 stuff in SPF, did you
checked this, in the past creating a extra transport for google
only via ipv4 was helpfull too
At least for madduck.net, I have SPF set to "v=spf1 ?all",
martin f krafft skrev den 2019-10-07 18:48:
I really appreciate all your eyeballs. I really do!
http://multirbl.valli.org/ good place to test all is ok
Robert Schetterer skrev den 2019-10-07 18:21:
Also a wide bug is not to include the ipv6 stuff in SPF, did you
checked this, in the past creating a extra transport for google only
via ipv4 was helpfull too
amazon have around 80 ipv4 adresses in there spf, is this nearly as
good as +all
Quoting "Allen Coates", who wrote on 2019-10-07 at 10:15 Uhr +0100:
Only one set of double-colons is allowed in an IPv6 address. It expands to an
unspecified number of zeros; doing it twice results in ambiguity.
Quoting "Wietse Venema", who wrote on 2019-10-07 at 07:00 Uhr -0400:
The form
Am 07.10.19 um 07:11 schrieb martin f krafft:
Quoting "Wietse Venema", who wrote on 2019-10-06 at 19:13 Uhr -0400:
Perhaps the SMTP client IP address 2001:db8:bad::cafe:: has no PTR
record (or the name does not resolve to 2001:db8:bad::cafe::).
Good point, but the address has a PTR record to
Jaroslaw Rafa:
> Dnia 7.10.2019 o godz. 23:54:41 Peter pisze:
> >
> > We get this question on IRC a lot as well, it's a common problem.
> > The generic answer I always give is this:
> >
> > If you're having problems getting your mail received by major ESPs
> > you should first check your
Dnia 7.10.2019 o godz. 23:54:41 Peter pisze:
>
> We get this question on IRC a lot as well, it's a common problem.
> The generic answer I always give is this:
>
> If you're having problems getting your mail received by major ESPs
> you should first check your fcrdns*, then make sure you have
On 8/10/19 12:04 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
Dnia 7.10.2019 o godz. 23:54:41 Peter pisze:
Also sign up for ESP-specific programs such as
feedback loops, Google postmaster tools and Microsoft's SNDS. Check
the individual postmaster pages for each ESP that you're having
problems with to make sure
Dnia 7.10.2019 o godz. 23:54:41 Peter pisze:
> Also sign up for ESP-specific programs such as
> feedback loops, Google postmaster tools and Microsoft's SNDS. Check
> the individual postmaster pages for each ESP that you're having
> problems with to make sure that you're in compliance with all of
martin f krafft:
> Quoting "Wietse Venema", who wrote on 2019-10-06 at 19:13 Uhr -0400:
> >Perhaps the SMTP client IP address 2001:db8:bad::cafe:: has no PTR
> >record (or the name does not resolve to 2001:db8:bad::cafe::).
>
> Good point, but the address has a PTR record to a name with an
On 7/10/19 5:36 AM, martin f krafft wrote:
Folks,
I hope this is not too off-topic, but I figure this is the best mailing
list because we're probably not in this boat alone, wherein we're
annoyed (very) and a bit helpless about Google. I have to ask here,
because Google of course doesn't
On 07/10/2019 06:11, martin f krafft wrote:
> Quoting "Wietse Venema", who wrote on 2019-10-06 at 19:13 Uhr -0400:
>> Perhaps the SMTP client IP address 2001:db8:bad::cafe:: has no PTR record (or
>> the name does not resolve to 2001:db8:bad::cafe::).
>
> Good point, but the address has a PTR
Quoting "Wietse Venema", who wrote on 2019-10-06 at 19:13 Uhr -0400:
Perhaps the SMTP client IP address 2001:db8:bad::cafe:: has no PTR
record (or the name does not resolve to 2001:db8:bad::cafe::).
Good point, but the address has a PTR record to a name with an
record pointing to the
martin f krafft:
> Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass (test mode)
> header.i=@example.org header.s=2015-11-14 header.b=T7jbyqDv;
> spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of
> madd...@example.org designates 2001:db8:bad::cafe:: as
> permitted sender)
Dnia 6.10.2019 o godz. 12:50:27 Bill Cole pisze:
>
> The MailOp list is probably a better choice:
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
I have the very same issue as the OP, thanks for pointing to that list!
--
Regards,
Jaroslaw Rafa
r...@rafa.eu.org
--
"In a
martin f krafft skrev den 2019-10-06 19:03:
Quoting "Bill Cole", who wrote on 2019-10-06 at 12:50 Uhr -0400:
The MailOp list is probably a better choice:
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Thanks! I didn't know about that. Will re-ask there. Sorry for the
noise.
Quoting "Bill Cole", who wrote on 2019-10-06 at 12:50 Uhr -0400:
The MailOp list is probably a better choice:
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Thanks! I didn't know about that. Will re-ask there. Sorry for the
noise.
--
@martinkrafft |
Quoting "Benny Pedersen", who wrote on 2019-10-06 at 18:44 Uhr +0200:
dkkim running in test mode ?, see if domain have t= in dns
Yes, on some domains it's still running in test mode. Is that enough
reason for Google admins to flick us the finger?
--
@martinkrafft |
Bill Cole skrev den 2019-10-06 18:50:
The MailOp list is probably a better choice:
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
NET::ERR_CERT_SYMANTEC_LEGACY
Actual Google mail admins respond to such queries there. Really.
if recipient keeps mails in spam folder how could
On 6 Oct 2019, at 12:36, martin f krafft wrote:
Folks,
I hope this is not too off-topic, but I figure this is the best
mailing list because we're probably not in this boat alone, wherein
we're annoyed (very) and a bit helpless about Google. I have to ask
here, because Google of course
martin f krafft skrev den 2019-10-06 18:36:
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass (test mode)
header.i=@example.org header.s=2015-11-14 header.b=T7jbyqDv;
spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of
madd...@example.org designates 2001:db8:bad::cafe:: as
Folks,
I hope this is not too off-topic, but I figure this is the best
mailing list because we're probably not in this boat alone, wherein
we're annoyed (very) and a bit helpless about Google. I have to ask
here, because Google of course doesn't care about us.
We operate several postfix
27 matches
Mail list logo
