On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 11:55:04PM +0000, Ken Moffat <zarniwh...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 09:10:01AM +1100, raf wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 03:12:41PM +0100, Stefan Hagen > > <sh+m...@ptrace.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 550-5.7.26 This message does not have authentication > > > > > information or fails to 550-5.7.26 pass authentication > > > > > checks. To best protect our users from spam, the > > > > > 550-5.7.26 message has been blocked. Please visit > > > > > > Authenticated in this context means, you don't have SPF / DKIM / > > > DMARC set up. > > > > That's sad. I'm pretty sure that the absence of SPF/DKIM/DMARC was > > never supposed to be interpreted as a failure of any of them. > > Perhaps the sending domain does have SPF but it's not setup > > correctly. It doesn't seem to (unixarea.de). > > > What is *really* sad is that most of the spam which gets through > direct to this account of mine is things apparently from gmail > addresses, pointing to ntlworld/somewhereelse.com addresses inviting > me to login, and with DKIM apparently passing (the last couple I > looked at were relaxed/relaxed). > > ĸen > -- > The beauty of reading a page of de Selby is that it leads one > inescapably to the conclusion that one is not, of all nincompoops, > the greatest. -- du Garbandier That's probably not because it's relaxed/relaxed. It's just that when spammers use gmail to send spam, gmail happily and correctly DKIM-signs the outgoing spam. Gmail only protects gmails users from receiving spam. It doesn't stop them sending spam. At least, that's what seems to be the case. cheers, raf
