> On Dec 14, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Ed Leafe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> SPF used to be good enough, but now they seem to also require DKIM signing
>> of all mail. I’m hoping to get around to that ASAP.
>
> I think it’s configured correctly (famous last words). See how this message
> fares...
>
> -- Ed Leafe
Here's what's in your message's header:
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
dkim=pass [email protected] header.s=mail header.b=RCVf/6O3;
dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) [email protected]
header.s=mail header.b=nXU6GCpW;
dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) [email protected]
header.s=mail header.b=r/Bf+RuK;
spf=pass (google.com: domain of [email protected]
designates 104.236.203.188 as permitted sender)
[email protected]
--
Dave Thayer
Denver, CO
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/caao+qov3qyftqtehhge-mnpc4abxxhvclgr7sm84hdrqnf3...@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
