On 02/23/2016 11:46 AM, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
(Assuming the operators/rule-setters care about DKIM)
I'd expect spamassassin to score a broken DKIM signature,
but ignore (or treat separately) an X-Header.
spamassassin default score for a broken DKIM is:
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKI
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, John Levine wrote:
> I turn the old signature into an X-header, which strips it of its
> power as far as machine validation goes, but leaves it available for
> human debugging if desired.
An X-Header and a broken DKIM signature have exactly the same
validation power: none.
>I turn the old signature into an X-header, which strips it of its
>power as far as machine validation goes, but leaves it available for
>human debugging if desired.
An X-Header and a broken DKIM signature have exactly the same
validation power: none. It doesn't hurt much (give or take Steve's
no
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 12:48 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:46 PM, John Levine wrote:
> IMHO, Mailman should strip the existing DKIM header and Mailop.org should
> sign anew.
Yes! That is the per
> On Feb 22, 2016, at 12:48 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:46 PM, John Levine wrote:
IMHO, Mailman should strip the existing DKIM header and Mailop.org should
sign anew.
>>>
>>> Yes! That is the perfect and proper way, despite some rants by less
>>> experien
I suspect with ARC coming up, leaving traces of broken DKIM headers will be
useful.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Al Iverson
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:46 PM, John Levine wrote:
> IMHO, Mailman should strip the existing
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:46 PM, John Levine wrote:
IMHO, Mailman should strip the existing DKIM header and Mailop.org should
sign anew.
>>>
>>>Yes! That is the perfect and proper way, despite some rants by less
>>>experienced ma
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:46 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> IMHO, Mailman should strip the existing DKIM header and Mailop.org should
>>> sign anew.
>>
>>Yes! That is the perfect and proper way, despite some rants by less
>>experienced mailinglist operators.
>
> Hi. I've been running mailing lists
>> IMHO, Mailman should strip the existing DKIM header and Mailop.org should
>> sign anew.
>
>Yes! That is the perfect and proper way, despite some rants by less
>experienced mailinglist operators.
Hi. I've been running mailing lists since the late 1970s and having
actually read the DKIM specs
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Al Iverson wrote:
> IMHO, Mailman should strip the existing DKIM header and Mailop.org should
> sign anew.
Yes! That is the perfect and proper way, despite some rants by less
experienced mailinglist operators.
Mailman has a REMOVE_DKIM_HEADERS setting in mm_cf
Here's headers from your post, Renaud.
Looks like a bit of an albatross to me -- IMHO, Mailman should strip
the existing DKIM header and Mailop.org should sign anew.
But the from header was indeed rewritten.
Cheers,
Al
Return-Path:
From: Renaud Allard via mailop
Reply-To: Renaud Allard
DKIM-
> On 22 Feb 2016, at 09:14, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am not sure it does the trick, …
...
> In the headers, I have:
> Return-path:
> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=mailplus2015-12;
> d=mailplus.nl;
> From: David Hofstee
>
> So it seems the From:
Hi,
I am not sure it does the trick, at least for me, or maybe you disabled
it afterwards. Here is an excerpt from my logs.
2016-02-22 10:03:22 [7439] H=chilli.nosignal.org
[2001:41c8:51:83:feff:ff:fe00:a0b]:50689 I=[2001:bc8:3186:100::a1fa]:25
Warning: CSA status: unknown
2016-02-22 10:03:2
Looks good!
--
Al Iverson - Minneapolis - (312) 275-0130
Simple DNS Tools since 2008: xnnd.com
www.spamresource.com & aliverson.com
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Franck Martin via mailop
wrote:
> Awesome, many thanks.
>
> (and let's see if it works)
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Simon
Awesome, many thanks.
(and let's see if it works)
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Simon Lyall wrote:
>
> I was away last week [1] so just caught up on the DMARC discussion.
>
> As an experiment I've changed the mailman settings[2] for DMARC'd emails
> to "Munge From"[3] which should change the
I was away last week [1] so just caught up on the DMARC discussion.
As an experiment I've changed the mailman settings[2] for DMARC'd emails
to "Munge From"[3] which should change their from address to the list's.
We'll see how that goes.
Simon.
Mailop co-mod
[1] - at Linux.conf.au , great
16 matches
Mail list logo
