On Sat, 2023-08-12 at 17:08 +0000, Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > Hello Adam, > Am Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 05:35:52PM +0100 schrieb Adam D. Barratt: > > On Sat, 2023-08-12 at 15:54 +0000, Helge Kreutzmann wrote: [...] > > > 550-5.7.26 This mail is unauthenticated, which poses a > > > security > > > risk to the > > > 550-5.7.26 sender and Gmail users, and has been blocked. The > > > sender must > > > 550-5.7.26 authenticate with at least one of SPF or DKIM. For > > > this message, > > > 550-5.7.26 DKIM checks did not pass and SPF check for > > > [helgefjell.de] did not > > > [...] > > > 550-5.7.26 > > > https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126#authentication for > > > 550 5.7.26 instructions on setting up authentication. v26- > > > 20020aa7d65a000000b005231f55294dsi4996663edr.385 - gsmtp > > > > > > The IP 82.195.75.114 resolves to > > > 114.75.195.82.in-addr.arpa is an alias for 114.64- > > > 26.75.195.82.in- > > > addr.arpa. > > > 114.64-26.75.195.82.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer > > > mailly.debian.org. > > > > > > And of course, SPF/DKIM checks for my domain (helgefjell.de) fail > > > for this IP, which is @debian.org. > > > > > > > The DKIM signature warning has nothing to do with the forwarding, > > or the involvement of debian.org at all. The reason that check > > fails is that your mail has no DKIM signature, so obviously can't > > have a valid one. Signing your mail would probably make gmail a lot > > happier with it in general. (As a side note, the BTS breaks many > > common DKIM signature strategies, but that's a different issue.) > > Sigh. > > Directly gmail accepts it. >
I'm not sure why the sigh, but in any case your direct mail presumably succeeds because it passes the SPF check. I was simply clarifying that the DKIM check would fail in both cases. Regards, Adam