On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 06:57:00AM -0700, SM wrote: > > Set LogWhy to Yes to find out why dkim-milter signs or a verifies a message.
Thank, helps a bit. > > >date|mail -s test [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the case where it doesn't > >date|mutt -s test [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > If dkim-milter is not configured to sign for subdomains, it won't > sign the email from > [EMAIL PROTECTED] The email addresses in your two > examples may have been rewritten if you have masquerading enabled in sendmail. Actually, it should have been masqueraded as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hm, I just found the missing spot in the masqerading configuration. The difference between sending mails via mutt and via mail is that mutt sets the sender to the FDQN, which then has to be masqueraded, and mail just leaves it unqualified, where sendmail puts in the proper domain, which hides the effect of the improper masquerading configuration. Thanks for pushing me to the right spot, Joerg
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________ dkim-milter-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dkim-milter-discuss
