Re: [mailop] Email System Testing Methodologies?

Thanks everyone for the suggestions, here is my summary of responses: Configuration Checkers: Web Based 1. mxtoolbox.com 2. gmail -> view source CLI 1. mailsec-check, https://github.com/foxcpp/mailsec-check Email Echo Testers: 1. check-a...@verifier.port25.com 2.

Re: [mailop] Best practice for mailing list servers

On Tue, 2022-06-14 at 19:07 +0200, Slavko via mailop wrote: > Ahoj, > > Dňa Tue, 14 Jun 2022 16:51:55 + Ken O'Driscoll via mailop > napísal: > > > I wouldn't suggest that you implement DMARC on your list domain > > as it > > won't help with deliverability and will just cause more issues. >

Re: [mailop] Best practice for mailing list servers

Hi Ken, thanks for your advice. > Am 14.06.2022 um 18:51 schrieb Ken O'Driscoll : > * DKIM sign all list messages with your own key Which headers should I sign? > * Use different DKIM keypairs for each list > * Don’t modify the originally message body (e.g., adding in a list footer > etc.)

Re: [mailop] Best practice for mailing list servers

Hi Matthew, The point of using different keypairs for different lists is that some message filters use the DKIM signing domain as a data point when calculating sender reputation. Ideally, you want to have the signing domain match the From domain. If the lists use different From domains, then

Re: [mailop] Best practice for mailing list servers

Ahoj, Dňa Tue, 14 Jun 2022 18:00:49 + Ken O'Driscoll via mailop napísal: > p=none is not always harmless. Some message filters treat p=none > differently to not having DMARC. For example, Alice periodically > treats p=none as equivalent to p=reject. Or there is an ISP who junks > mail from

Re: [mailop] Best practice for mailing list servers

Ken O'Driscoll wrote:- >* Use different DKIM keypairs for each list Out of interest, why? Are there any known issues with using the same keypair across multiple lists, or indeed across multiple sending domains? -- Best wishes, Matthew ___ mailop

Re: [mailop] Best practice for mailing list servers

Hi Slavo, p=none is not always harmless. Some message filters treat p=none differently to not having DMARC. For example, Alice periodically treats p=none as equivalent to p=reject. Or there is an ISP who junks mail from domains with an RUA pointing to a freemail account, regardless of the

Re: [mailop] Best practice for mailing list servers

Ahoj, Dňa Tue, 14 Jun 2022 16:51:55 + Ken O'Driscoll via mailop napísal: > I wouldn't suggest that you implement DMARC on your list domain as it > won't help with deliverability and will just cause more issues. It's > not really designed for mailing lists. Please, what issues will cause

Re: [mailop] Best practice for mailing list servers

Hi Axel, I would suggest: * Make sure that the list's 5321.From (return-path/envelope/MAILFROM) domain has a valid and restrictive SPF * DKIM sign all list messages with your own key * Use different DKIM keypairs for each list * Don’t modify the originally message body (e.g., adding in a list

[mailop] Best practice for mailing list servers

Hi all, I’m running a mailman3 site with several small mailing lists. Today Google let all mails without DKIM sig bounce. Other ESPs refuse my mails because of brokem DKIM sig. Currently the listserver does not DKIM-sign nor remove DKIM-sigs. It seems, that mails with DKIM-sig (from the author

Re: [mailop] Curious, any one seeing fake SpamCop reports over the weekend?

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 08:10:23AM -0700, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote: > Real strange, fake abuse addresses.. Plenty of the same in the spamtraps. -- Atro Tossavainen, Founder, Partner Koli-Lõks OÜ (reg. no. 12815457, VAT ID EE101811635) Tallinn, Estonia tel. +372-5883-4269,

Re: [mailop] Paper on email delivery/standards adoption

Heho, Thanks, already found that. :-| There is another embarrassing one later on in the paper. Sadly nothing we can do about the version going to Usenix anymore. :-/ With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M

Re: [mailop] Paper on email delivery/standards adoption

Typo in line 4 SMPT -> SMTP Am 13.06.22 um 21:21 schrieb Tobias Fiebig via mailop: Heho, Quiet some time ago i asked the list for some help in an ongoing email measurement study; The paper is now finally out and accepted. An open-access preprint can be found