Displaying 20 results from an estimated 30000 matches similar to: "Bounces?"
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
2019 Feb 09
0
Bounces?
<!doctype html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>
For some reason mailman failed to "munge from" for senders with dmarc policy ;(
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
It's now configured to always munge to avoid this again.
</div>
<div>
2019 Feb 09
0
offtopic: rant about thoughtless enabling DMARC checks [was: Re: Bounces?]
<!doctype html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
On 09 February 2019 at 20:48 Juri Haberland via dovecot <
<a href="mailto:dovecot@dovecot.org">dovecot@dovecot.org</a>> wrote:
</div>
2018 Jun 16
4
About the membership issue
Concerning the disabled membership (yesterday). Is there anything that I should do?
Visiting the "re-enable" link shows only a plain site with meta information about
the list but without any feedback like "membership enabled". Albeit some postings are
coming in again now (with "normalized" sender address <centos at centos.org>). Seems
the work to resolve
2018 Jun 16
1
About the membership issue
On 06/16/2018 05:58 AM, Johnny Hughes via CentOS wrote:
> On 06/16/2018 05:42 AM, Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote:
>> Concerning the disabled membership (yesterday). Is there anything that I should do?
>> Visiting the "re-enable" link shows only a plain site with meta information about
>> the list but without any feedback like "membership enabled". Albeit
2019 Feb 09
2
offtopic: rant about thoughtless enabling DMARC checks [was: Re: Bounces?]
Am 09.02.19 um 19:56 schrieb Aki Tuomi via dovecot:
> I'll review the settings when we manage to upgrade to mailman3
Hello Aki,
before updating to mailman3 consider an simpler update to latest mailman2.
you're using 2.1.15, current mailman2 is 2.1.29
Your missing an /significant amount/ of DMARC fixes!
and: more off-topic:
while my messages *to* the dovecot list are sent using
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
2018 Jun 15
5
Passwords in plain text
> Date: Friday, June 15, 2018 14:55:21 -0700
> From: Akemi Yagi <amyagi at gmail.com>
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Gianluca Cecchi
> <gianluca.cecchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Il Ven 15 Giu 2018, 18:45 Larry Martell <larry.martell at gmail.com>
>> ha scritto:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 12:41 PM rj coleman
>>>
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
2019 Feb 10
2
offtopic: rant about thoughtless enabling DMARC checks
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
2019 Feb 05
4
Release notify (2.2.36.1 and 2.3.4.1)
On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 11:18:45PM +0300, Odhiambo Washington via dovecot wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 20:32, Aki Tuomi via dovecot <dovecot at dovecot.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Due to DMARC issues some people have failed to receive the latest security
> > information, so here it is repeated for both releases:
> >
> > 2.3.4.1
> >
> >
2019 Feb 05
4
Release notify (2.2.36.1 and 2.3.4.1)
On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 11:18:45PM +0300, Odhiambo Washington via dovecot wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 20:32, Aki Tuomi via dovecot <dovecot at dovecot.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Due to DMARC issues some people have failed to receive the latest security
> > information, so here it is repeated for both releases:
> >
> > 2.3.4.1
> >
> >
2019 Feb 09
0
offtopic: rant about thoughtless enabling DMARC checks [was: Re: Bounces?]
On 2/9/19 10:48 AM, Juri Haberland via dovecot wrote:
> 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
2018 Apr 26
1
dmarc auth on incoming email
Just reading up on DMARC, toying with setting it up to auth against
incoming emails. (but not configure my domain to use dmarc, or at least
not yet)
ran into an article about opendmarc, which is available on epel. but
when I took a look at the opendmarc website and the git pages it
doesn't appear to have been updated in several years.
while I see that it is still available from epel, I
2019 Feb 10
3
offtopic: rant about thoughtless enabling DMARC checks
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
2019 Feb 05
3
Release notify (2.2.36.1 and 2.3.4.1)
Due to DMARC issues some people have failed to receive the latest security information, so here it is repeated for both releases:
2.3.4.1
https://dovecot.org/releases/2.3/dovecot-2.3.4.1.tar.gz
https://dovecot.org/releases/2.3/dovecot-2.3.4.1.tar.gz.sig
<https://dovecot.org/releases/2.3/dovecot-2.3.2.tar.gz.sig>
Binary packages in https://repo.dovecot.org/
* CVE-2019-3814: If
2019 Feb 05
3
Release notify (2.2.36.1 and 2.3.4.1)
Due to DMARC issues some people have failed to receive the latest security information, so here it is repeated for both releases:
2.3.4.1
https://dovecot.org/releases/2.3/dovecot-2.3.4.1.tar.gz
https://dovecot.org/releases/2.3/dovecot-2.3.4.1.tar.gz.sig
<https://dovecot.org/releases/2.3/dovecot-2.3.2.tar.gz.sig>
Binary packages in https://repo.dovecot.org/
* CVE-2019-3814: If
2019 Feb 10
1
offtopic: rant about thoughtless enabling DMARC checks
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
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
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