út 5. 3. 2019 v 16:44 odesílatel Julian Bradfield
napsal:
>
> On 2019-03-05, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> >> > And the last thing, setting of DMARC at tug.org is wrong, the DNS
> >> > query returns the SPF record, not the DMARC record.
> >>
> >> No, it isn't wrong - there is no setting for DMARC.
> >>
On 2019-03-05, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
>> > And the last thing, setting of DMARC at tug.org is wrong, the DNS
>> > query returns the SPF record, not the DMARC record.
>>
>> No, it isn't wrong - there is no setting for DMARC.
>> A dns query for _dmarc.tug.org TXT records returns two records:
>>
>>
út 5. 3. 2019 v 15:21 odesílatel Julian Bradfield
napsal:
>
> On 2019-03-05, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
>
> [ Please don't top-post. ]
>
>...
>
> > And the last thing, setting of DMARC at tug.org is wrong, the DNS
> > query returns the SPF record, not the DMARC record.
>
> No, it isn't wrong - there
On 2019-03-05, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
[ Please don't top-post. ]
> Now assume that someb...@nodkim.org sned a mail to the list.
> @nodkim.org has neither DKIM nor DMARC. The mail is distributed to the
> subscribers. SPF passes, @nodkim.org does not provide DKIM and there
> are no headers. There
On Sun, Mar 03 2019 at 16:05 -07, Karl Berry wrote:
> Hi - I've removed the "[XeTeX]" prefix on Subject lines from this
> mailing list (xetex)'s messages. It is my hope that this will reduce
> the ever-increasing flood of dmarc failures
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMARC).
Perhaps the
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> problem. Gmail accepts majority of such mails. Only if I display the
> original message, I can see DKIM FAIL and DMARC FAIL. However, I had
> problems with forwarded messages and important invoices were not
It would certainly be better that the mailing
Hi,
your description is exact but I do not agree that there is not a huge
problem. Gmail accepts majority of such mails. Only if I display the
original message, I can see DKIM FAIL and DMARC FAIL. However, I had
problems with forwarded messages and important invoices were not
delivered and I was
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> DMARC can be set as one of the following ways:
> * The mail is valid if at least one of SPF and DKIM passes
> * If the mail is signed, it is valid if both SPF and DKIM pass
>
> Let's assume that we have the latter case and we try to "solve" it by
>
No, rewriting From without other changes does not help. First, looking
into DNS, the SPF for tug.org is set as:
$ dig TXT tug.org +short
"v=spf1 a a:freefriends.org mx:freefriends.org a:fencepost.gnu.org
include:_spf.google.com ~all"
The sender for the TL list is here in the permitted servers.
On Mon, 4 Mar 2019, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> I am afraid that the subject prefix is just one of several reasons. I
> have just examined the recent reply by Norbert Preining. Gmail
> reports:
> SPF: PASS, DKIM: FAIL, DMARC: FAIL.
If SPF passes, then DMARC ought to pass. DMARC is only supposed to
The solution JISCMAIL uses is following:
From: "VON KAEHNE, Peter (NHS )" <
0..0-dmarc-requ...@jiscmail.ac.uk>
Reply-To: Rural General Practitioners Association of Scotland <
rg...@jiscmail.ac.uk>
To: rg...@jiscmail.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [RGPAS]
The From header is
Hi,
I am afraid that the subject prefix is just one of several reasons. I
have just examined the recent reply by Norbert Preining. Gmail
reports:
SPF: PASS, DKIM: FAIL, DMARC: FAIL.
Further examination shows that the mail was sent from 91.121.174.77
which is listed in SPF as a permitted sender
On Sun, 2019-03-03 at 16:05 -0700, Karl Berry wrote:
> Hi - I've removed the "[XeTeX]" prefix on Subject lines from this
> mailing list (xetex)'s messages. It is my hope that this will reduce
> the ever-increasing flood of dmarc failures
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMARC).
Isn't the problem
Hi - I've removed the "[XeTeX]" prefix on Subject lines from this
mailing list (xetex)'s messages. It is my hope that this will reduce
the ever-increasing flood of dmarc failures
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMARC).
This was first noticed with Yahoo, long ago, which did not matter much,
then
14 matches
Mail list logo
