similar to: DMARC mailing list rejections

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

On 10/02/2019 07:38, Ralph Seichter via dovecot wrote: > * Juri Haberland via dovecot: > >> Blindly enabling DMARC checks without thinking about the consequences >> for themselves should not be the problem of other well behaving >> participants. > > Can you judge if DMARC is enabled "blindly"? No, I thought not. Also, > the issue was not on the

On 2/10/19 3:46 PM, Michael A. Peters via dovecot wrote: > On 2/10/19 3:42 PM, Noel Butler via dovecot wrote: >> On 10/02/2019 12:49, Benny Pedersen via dovecot wrote: >> >>> >>> fixing mailman will be the fail, solve it by letting opendkim and >>> opendmarc not reject detected maillist will be solution, >> >> >> A general broad mailing

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

On 10/02/2019 12:49, Benny Pedersen via dovecot wrote: > fixing mailman will be the fail, solve it by letting opendkim and opendmarc not reject detected maillist will be solution, A general broad mailing list whitelist will be problematic, do work it needs to look for specific list type hidden headers, spammers and nasties will incorporate those headers into their trash that impersonates

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:

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

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

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

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

> 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

>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

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

On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 19:28 +0200, Reindl Harald via samba wrote: > *every* single message from this mailing list has a reply-to header to > the poster, independent who is the poster, no other mailing-list on > planet earth has a reply-to-header - it's that simple - period So, e-mail is hard these days, and mailing list e-mail is even harder. Read up about the interactions between

Another "me too" (also Gmail). I just received my 4th "account suspended, too many bounces" email, after having several days of lost mailing list content over a short vacation break the last time. When I notified the admin email account of the failure, it seemed the responder missed the point about the emails, saying the link had expired (it had been more than three days

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,

Test from Yahoo via Android --Gene

[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

Hi List Subscribers, In recent months we have been seeing an increasing number of bounced deliveries from libvirt mailing lists[1] due to DMARC policies on list subscriber's mail servers. IOW, many subscribers are only receiving a subset of mails sent to the libvirt mailing lists. We believe the root cause of many of the problems is that mailman is modifying the mail subject to add the

Hi! It seems we accidentically had a high amount of subscribers temporarily disabled due to DMARC on some sender's host. We have now taken actions to prevent this in the future and all temporarily disabled members have been restored. Aki