On 7/13/23 10:56 AM, Slavko via mailop wrote:
Ahoj,
Hi,
OK, our opinions are near the same, but still opinions only, without
something in RFC.
:-)
IMO one cannot apply SPF independently nowadays.
I absolutely think that it's quite possible to apply SPF independently
nowadays.
Sure,
> On 13.07.2023 at 20:52 Robert L Mathews via mailop wrote:
>
> On 7/13/23 11:12 AM, Jarland Donnell via mailop wrote:
>> Perhaps it's going off topic and apologies if so, but this makes me wonder a
>> second thing. Who is, and why are they, adding subdomains to the PSL when
>> subdomains
> On 13.07.2023 at 11:12 Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote:
>
>
> Has anyone on this list tried forwarding (e.g. for ex-employees) via
> attachment? The original message would be kept intact, while the outer
> message clearly originates with the forwarding agent who may even add a human
>
> On 13.07.2023 at 17:55 Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
>
> It's not at all logically hard to meet that arbitrary requirement, you just
> need a zone cut everywhere you have a MX record. I've run a DNS and mail
> hosting environment that way. Zone files are very small and numerous.
>
On 7/13/23 11:12 AM, Jarland Donnell via mailop wrote:
Perhaps it's going off topic and apologies if so, but this makes me
wonder a second thing. Who is, and why are they, adding subdomains to
the PSL when subdomains above that in hierarchy are in the same zone file?
Some domains that offer
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 11:19 AM Slavko via mailop
wrote:
>
> Would not be more effective to not use technique prone to false
> positives? For both sides...
>
So you mean not trying to filter spam or fight spammers at all? I have not
seen a solution which doesn't produce false positives.
Perhaps it's going off topic and apologies if so, but this makes me
wonder a second thing. Who is, and why are they, adding subdomains to
the PSL when subdomains above that in hierarchy are in the same zone
file?
On 2023-07-13 13:06, Robert L Mathews via mailop wrote:
On 7/13/23 10:44
Dňa 13. júla 2023 17:41:51 UTC používateľ Marcel Becker via mailop
napísal:
>On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:35 AM Robert L Mathews via mailop <
>mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
>
>> I still think this is a check that's prone to false positives
>>
>
>Or other issues. Yes. That's why we are also helping
On 7/13/23 10:44 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
If .tld is on PSL, then example.tld will be the organizational domain. And
it definitely should have its own zone file, so it should have SOA. I can't
imagine a scenario in which it doesn't.
An example is something like
On 2023-07-13 at 12:06:45 UTC-0400 (Thu, 13 Jul 2023 11:06:45 -0500)
Grant Taylor via mailop
is rumored to have said:
On 7/13/23 10:49 AM, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
It's not at all logically hard to meet that arbitrary requirement,
you just need a zone cut everywhere you have a MX record.
Dnia 13.07.2023 o godz. 10:23:24 Robert L Mathews via mailop pisze:
>
> But anyway, if other people have this trouble, note that it can
> happen whether the MAIL FROM domain name is directly at a PSL
> breakpoint or not. The issue is just that there's no SOA found at
> the MAIL FROM domain name
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:35 AM Robert L Mathews via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> I still think this is a check that's prone to false positives
>
Or other issues. Yes. That's why we are also helping where we can when
folks reach out to us.
-- Marcel
On 7/12/23 9:42 PM, Felix Fontein via mailop wrote:
right now there is only a SOA record for `us.` itself and for
`ci.westfir.or.us.`, but for nothing inbetween.
Ugh, you're right, the customer has removed the delegation of
westfir.or.us (I was testing on internal servers that still showed
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 9:00 AM Bill Cole via mailop
wrote:
>
> It is worth noting that this is in no way a "standard" or even a
> widely-known "best practice"
>
Nobody has claimed that.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
On 7/13/23 10:49 AM, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
It's not at all logically hard to meet that arbitrary requirement, you
just need a zone cut everywhere you have a MX record. I've run a DNS and
mail hosting environment that way. Zone files are very small and
numerous. *Logistically* changing an
Ahoj,
Dňa Wed, 12 Jul 2023 10:04:10 -0500 Grant Taylor via mailop
napísal:
> In my opinion, if a domain's DMARC has a p=none, then you don't
> filter on DMARC. But you still independently apply your site's
> local SPF filtering policy preferably following the sending domain's
> stated SPF
On 2023-07-13 at 10:15:27 UTC-0400 (Thu, 13 Jul 2023 07:15:27 -0700)
Marcel Becker via mailop
is rumored to have said:
No. I might as well reveal the actual domain names involved, since
it's
not particularly secret: it's "westfir.or.us" and "ci.westfir.or.us".
It's actually not that
On 2023-07-12 at 18:38:05 UTC-0400 (Wed, 12 Jul 2023 15:38:05 -0700)
Robert L Mathews via mailop
is rumored to have said:
Today I had a customer complain that mail they send to AOL or Yahoo
addresses was being returned with:
451 Message temporarily deferred due to unresolvable RFC.5321 from
On 2023-07-12 at 18:53:31 UTC-0400 (Wed, 12 Jul 2023 15:53:31 -0700)
Michael Peddemors via mailop
is rumored to have said:
On 2023-07-12 12:53, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Most of regular consumer email users don't have any reason for this.
As Bill
Cole, whom I was replying to, wrote -
Hans-Martin & all -
On 13.07.2023 11:00, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote:
Has anyone on this list tried forwarding (e.g. for ex-employees) via
attachment? The original message would be kept intact, while the outer
message clearly originates with the forwarding agent who may even add
a
>
>
> No. I might as well reveal the actual domain names involved, since it's
> not particularly secret: it's "westfir.or.us" and "ci.westfir.or.us".
>
>
It's actually not that complicated. We want to see an SOA record for either
the domain OR the organizational domain.
We use the PSL to
On 7/13/23 4:00 AM, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote:
Has anyone on this list tried forwarding (e.g. for ex-employees) via
attachment?
I have done exactly this on a onesie-twosie / manual basis.
I have .forward files on systems that I administer and can run into
problems when I send an
On 7/13/23 2:24 AM, Gellner, Oliver via mailop wrote:
The requirement is actually less restrictive as it only requires a
SOA record and not additional A, or MX records in DNS. It is not
necessary that every hostname has a SOA record, that indeed would be
unreasonable. Yahoo only requires
On top of that a mailbox receiving such a forwarded message could "unpack" it
automagically, provided it trusts the forwarding instance signature.
So the message appears as delivered locally with original signatures intact,
and the MUA opening the message would not have to open an attachment
Has anyone on this list tried forwarding (e.g. for ex-employees) via
attachment? The original message would be kept intact, while the outer
message clearly originates with the forwarding agent who may even add a
human readable reminder to the addressee to let the sender know about the
changed
Hey Michael,
On 13.07.23 00:53, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
And yes, email forwarding will break.. but email forwarding remotely
should be killed off anyways.. everyone can log into two accounts.
Everyone has always been able to log into two accounts. There are other
reasons why this
On Wed, 12 Jul 2023, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
And yes, email forwarding will break.. but email forwarding remotely should
be killed off anyways.. everyone can log into two accounts.
Universities would like to allow the world to contact staff who have
recently left. We forward
Dear Bastian,
Thank you for your reply.
Am 11.07.23 um 19:43 schrieb Bastian Blank:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 05:47:12PM +0200, Paul Menzel via mailop wrote:
Testing the mail setup, I was surprised to have the key exchange parameters
flagged [1]:
a1241.mx.srv.dfn.de.DH-2048
On 13.07.2023 at 00:38 Robert L Mathews via mailop wrote:
> Aside from anything else, it implies that SOA records can be easily added to
> solve this, similar to how you add MX or A records. But that is usually not
> the case: SOA records can exist only at a DNS zone delegation boundary, not
>
29 matches
Mail list logo
