Do these permissions look correct for qmail-dk?  I'm just trying to think of
something...

-rws--x--x   1 qmailq qmail  49216 Mar  6 12:36 qmail-dk

Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric "Shubes" [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 9:07 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [qmailtoaster] Random Domainkey Failures

Jason P wrote:
> Randomly, incoming and outgoing mail will fail domainkey checks.  I've
> tested this with both yahoo and gmail, and get the same results.  I
> cannot understand what is happening or why.  Might there be a package
> domainkeys is depending on, that is not behaving correctly?  I've
> upgraded everything to the devel versions, double checked DNS records,
> and sent out various tests.  Sometimes it works, and other times it
> doesn't.  Does anyone have any clues?  I'm running CentOS 4.3 x64.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jason

qmail-dk is broken in some cases. That's why we don't use the BG settings in
DKVERIFY. Some keys (gmail in particular) don't verify correctly.

I'm not aware of a problem with outgoing signatures though. You might want
to set "t=y" in your _domainkey DNS record until Alexey (or someone) gets a
chance to fix up qmail-dk. FWIW, gmail (google, who's the force behind DK
and DKIM) runs DK with t=y. DKIM will be relacing DomainKeys anyway some
time in the future. DKIM was recently approved as a standard, but there's no
toaster (or qmail TTBOMK) implementation of it yet.

-- 
-Eric 'shubes'

---------------------------------------------------------------------
     QmailToaster hosted by: VR Hosted <http://www.vr.org>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
     QmailToaster hosted by: VR Hosted <http://www.vr.org>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to