Displaying 20 results from an estimated 5000 matches similar to: "FYI: intention to remove mail subject prefix & footer text"
2024 Jul 20
2
openssh-unix-dev DMARC-related settings (was Re: scattered thoughts on connection sharing)
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:14?AM Stuart Henderson <stu at spacehopper.org> wrote:
> The mail admins can choose what is covered by the DKIM signature.
> In the case of barclays.com there are various headers (which I think
> make it through the mailing list untouched) but also the body, which
> does not; a footer with the list URL is added.
The real issue here is that the Mailman
2015 Jan 04
4
DMARC test
On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 12:14:51PM -0500, Gene Cumm wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 9:27 AM, gene.cumm at yahoo.com <gene.cumm at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Test from Yahoo via Android
> >
> > --Gene
> > _______________________________________________
> > Syslinux mailing list
> > Submissions to Syslinux at zytor.com
> > Unsubscribe or set options at:
2015 Jan 04
0
DMARC test
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 9:27 AM, gene.cumm at yahoo.com <gene.cumm at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Test from Yahoo via Android
>
> --Gene
> _______________________________________________
> Syslinux mailing list
> Submissions to Syslinux at zytor.com
> Unsubscribe or set options at:
> http://www.zytor.com/mailman/listinfo/syslinux
As some users may already be aware, my test
2018 Jun 17
2
Passwords in plain text
On 06/17/2018 09:11 AM, Alice Wonder via CentOS wrote:
> On 06/17/2018 08:52 AM, Michael Hennebry via CentOS wrote:
>> I'm petty sure I messed up attributions, so am deleting them.
>>
>>>> I believe this is a DMARC issue. Yahoo, among other places, has set
>>>> their dmarc records to p=reject:
>>
>>>> So, if your mail hosting provider
2017 Aug 24
3
dmarc report faild ?
In the same vein,
I am receiving forensic DMARC reports from mx01.nausch.org.
Whenever I send a message to the mailing list or when my server sends a
DMARC report, I'm getting a DMARC Forensic report.
It's odd, because the actual report tells me both DKIM and SPF (in the
the of a DMARC report) pass...
Here is what I am getting :
This is an authentication failure report for an email
2018 Jun 17
2
Passwords in plain text
I'm petty sure I messed up attributions, so am deleting them.
>> I believe this is a DMARC issue. Yahoo, among other places, has set
>> their dmarc records to p=reject:
>> So, if your mail hosting provider enforces dmarc,(gmail does) and you
>> get mail from a list that doesn't rewrite the headers, and people
>> from places like yahoo post to the list,
2019 Feb 09
8
offtopic: rant about thoughtless enabling DMARC checks [was: Re: Bounces?]
On 09/02/2019 10:44, Aki Tuomi via dovecot wrote:
> For some reason mailman failed to "munge from" for senders with dmarc policy ;(
>
> It's now configured to always munge to avoid this again.
I'd say, let Mailman throw all people off the list that have enabled DMARC
checking without using exceptions for the lists they are on. It's a known
fact that DMARC does not
2024 Jul 18
2
[OT] Re: scattered thoughts on connection sharing
[sorry off-topic, ignore if uninterested in dmarc/dkim/mail filters]
On 2024/07/17 22:14, mark.yagnatinsky at barclays.com wrote:
> I don't know enough about DMARC to make any sense of what you just said... actually wait, maybe I get it.
> You're saying that email sent that I send to the list will land in your inbox with my address in the From header.
> But the recipient mail
2019 Sep 17
2
OT: DMARC / DKIM Failure Reports
Hi guys,
when I send e-mails to CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org>, I received DMARC / DKIM failure reports. Is it possible to solve this problem and if so how?
This is the first report:
This is an email abuse report for an email message received from IP 208.100.23.70 on Tue, 17 Sep 2019 15:56:25 +0200.
The message below did not meet the sending domain's DMARC policy.
For
2015 Jan 17
3
DMARC test (request)
> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 1:48 AM, Geert Stappers <stappers at stappers.nl> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 07:37:44PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 12:14:51PM -0500, Gene Cumm wrote:
>?????????? <snip/>
> > > As far as I can tell, GMail does process the SPF/DKIM/DMARC properties
> > > but ignores
2018 Jan 16
3
DMARC mailing list rejections
I get about a half dozen rejection messages from various servers when I
post to this list. Is there something I need to configure differently in my
DMARC record to be better compliant?
Daniel
2015 Jan 17
0
DMARC test (request)
On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 07:37:44PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 12:14:51PM -0500, Gene Cumm wrote:
<snip/>
> > As far as I can tell, GMail does process the SPF/DKIM/DMARC properties
> > but ignores Yahoo!'s DMARC policy to reject on failure.
>
> The Syslinux ML should now be ready for DMARC p=reject
>
> We shall see how
2019 Feb 11
2
[fdo] PSA: Google dropping a lot of list email
Hi all,
There's a good chance that the people who most need to see this won't
see it, but here goes anyway.
Google is currently dropping a _lot_ of the mail we attempt to deliver
to lists.fd.o subscribers. The immediate cause is sending on mail from
domains with SPF/DKIM/DMARC policies which explicitly specify that
lists.fd.o cannot relay mail on their behalf. Every time we do that,
not
2016 Nov 04
2
mailing list mail from @yahoo addresses
[extracted from "Re: [CentOS] dnf and failing epel" message chain.]
> From: lejeczek peljasz at yahoo.co.uk
> Date: Fri Nov 4 13:39:40 UTC 2016
>> Date: Friday, November 04, 2016 08:51:07 -0400
>> From: Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org>
>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:30:02PM +0000, lejeczek wrote:
>>>
>>> ps. I
2019 Feb 11
3
[fdo] PSA: Mailman changes, From addresses no longer accurate
Hi all,
We have hit another step change in aggressive anti-spam techniques
from major mail providers. Over the past few days, we saw a huge spike
in the number of mails we were failing to deliver to GMail and
outlook.com in particular.
It looks like it is now no longer acceptable for us to break
DMARC/DKIM/SPF. These are DNS-based extensions to SMTP, which allow
domains to publish policies as to
2019 Feb 11
3
[fdo] PSA: Mailman changes, From addresses no longer accurate
Hi all,
We have hit another step change in aggressive anti-spam techniques
from major mail providers. Over the past few days, we saw a huge spike
in the number of mails we were failing to deliver to GMail and
outlook.com in particular.
It looks like it is now no longer acceptable for us to break
DMARC/DKIM/SPF. These are DNS-based extensions to SMTP, which allow
domains to publish policies as to
2015 Jan 23
1
DMARC test (request)
>I wonder (please forgive my ignorance), whether there would be any
>change/improvement if the "Reply-To:" and "CC:" fields would be
>interchanged (back) from the current behavior (since March 2014 or so,
>http://www.syslinux.org/archives/2014-March/021895.html ). Perhaps
>Hotmail (and family) would accept these (Yahoo-originated) messages
>then?
AFAIK if the
2017 Aug 24
3
dmarc report faild ?
Hello Together
Please i have new following Error, from DMARC Report, if i check my domain
on example mxtoolbox i dont see any problems.
Any from you know this Eror report, what i need to do to fix this issue?
C:\folder>nslookup 94.237.32.243
Server: dns204.data.ch
Address: 211.232.23.124
Name: wursti.dovecot.fi
Address: 94.237.32.243
2023 Jan 17
1
submission_host auth
> Let's say we have dovecot + sieve plugin container.
> Dovecot configured to use remote SMTP submission host to send messages:
> submission_host = postfix.example.com:587
I reviewed my config to see how i did it. I think you are right and SASL isn't used here. I have dovecot and postfix on the same machine and in dovecot i set
submission_host = localhost:25
Then in my
2024 Jul 17
1
scattered thoughts on connection sharing
I don't know enough about DMARC to make any sense of what you just said... actually wait, maybe I get it.
You're saying that email sent that I send to the list will land in your inbox with my address in the From header.
But the recipient mail system will think to itself
"this message couldn't possibly have come from Mark, because a cursory inspection of the routing history clearly