Re: [mailop] hotmail.com SPF forgot IPv6

SPF contains information about which IP addresses are authorized or unauthorized to send messages for a given domain. It does not contain a policy on what to do with this information. "Sender Policy Framework" See G.1-G.4, which are strangely worded for a system that doesn't contain any

Re: [mailop] hotmail.com SPF forgot IPv6

It appears that Gellner, Oliver via mailop said: > >> On 19.08.2023 at 19:01 Jarland Donnell via mailop wrote: >> >> Is "-all" not indeed a policy in SPF, directed by the domain owner? I would >> argue that it is. Especially given that there are options there, each one >> defining how the

Re: [mailop] hotmail.com SPF forgot IPv6

> On 19.08.2023 at 19:01 Jarland Donnell via mailop wrote: > > Is "-all" not indeed a policy in SPF, directed by the domain owner? I would > argue that it is. Especially given that there are options there, each one > defining how the domain owner wishes SPF failure to be treated. I would find

Re: [mailop] DKIM AUID and subdomains

> On 21.08.2023 at 17:57 Slavko via mailop wrote: > > Dňa 21. augusta 2023 7:44:45 UTC používateľ Alessandro Vesely via mailop > napísal: > >> It is also possible to set: >> >> DKIM-Signature: ... d=sub.example.org > > Yes, that i used, and that is what i want to avoid -- to maintain

Re: [mailop] hotmail.com SPF forgot IPv6

Dňa 21. augusta 2023 14:51:14 UTC používateľ Al Iverson via mailop napísal: >The problem is that even if you have DMARC in place, it is VERY easy >to configure SPF checking so that SPF-failing mail is blocked at the >edge...you never get far enough to denote DKIM passing. Having >accidentally

Re: [mailop] DKIM AUID and subdomains

Dňa 21. augusta 2023 7:44:45 UTC používateľ Alessandro Vesely via mailop napísal: >Are you actually moving email addresses to a subdomain? No, no changes in mail, only in DKIM. >It is also possible to set: > > DKIM-Signature: ... d=sub.example.org Yes, that i used, and that is what i

Re: [mailop] hotmail.com SPF forgot IPv6

On 21/08/2023 17:49, Jarland Donnell via mailop wrote: I haven't spent much time on ARC but if I understand correctly, isn't that a 100% trust based system? Meaning I have to trust that when you say you authenticated it, that you're trustworthy when saying it? Not always but in quite a few

Re: [mailop] hotmail.com SPF forgot IPv6

ARC is where it's at I haven't spent much time on ARC but if I understand correctly, isn't that a 100% trust based system? Meaning I have to trust that when you say you authenticated it, that you're trustworthy when saying it? On 2023-08-21 04:30, Taavi Eomäe via mailop wrote: On

Re: [mailop] hotmail.com SPF forgot IPv6

Yeah, blocking on SPF -all is scary, really people shouldn't. But I'm guilty of implementing it that way myself, so who am I to talk? Maybe it's more that it's fine if you want to do it as a crazy hobbyist, but if you're one of the biggest mailbox providers on the earth...it's not a great idea.

Re: [mailop] [E] Anyone from ATT?

Please contact me off list. thanks! *Lili Crowley* she/her Postmaster On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 3:44 PM Judith Villarreal via mailop < mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > Hey all. Is anyone from ATT/SbcGlobal on this list? We're having trouble > with IPs being blocked.

Re: [mailop] hotmail.com SPF forgot IPv6

On 21.08.23 12:26, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: > > How do your users know to welcome list if the mail is rejected before it > gets to the user? Do you notify them you rejected mail being sent to > them or something? No, we don't notify recipient on reject, but our interface shows rejects

Re: [mailop] hotmail.com SPF forgot IPv6

> On 21 Aug 2023, at 10:08, Laurent S. via mailop wrote: > > > On 21.08.23 10:26, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: > >> This recommendation doesn’t make sense. For companies that actually >> reject due to SPF, they’re most likely going to do it after MAIL FROM: >> At this point in the

Re: [mailop] hotmail.com SPF forgot IPv6

On 21/08/2023 12:08, Laurent S. via mailop wrote: I guess they don't care about breaking DKIM either. Avoiding to break SPF isn't rocket science. Many methods to avoid breaking SPF will break DKIM (if it exists, thus DMARC). It's not rocket science, but it's not trivial. ARC is where

Re: [mailop] hotmail.com SPF forgot IPv6

On 21.08.23 10:26, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: > This recommendation doesn’t make sense. For companies that actually > reject due to SPF, they’re most likely going to do it after MAIL FROM: > At this point in the transaction, they don’t know what the DMARC domain > is. They can look up

Re: [mailop] hotmail.com SPF forgot IPv6

> On 19 Aug 2023, at 12:31, Gellner, Oliver via mailop > wrote: > > >> On 19.08.2023 at 12:30 Benny Pedersen via mailop wrote: >> >> prove it, it just loose dmarc aligment, if it was hardfails, lets not ignore >> domain owners, ever >> >> spf softfails can still pass dkim, hopefully you

Re: [mailop] Anyone a contact @ virusfree.cz

Hi, did anyone get back to you? I am listed too and I have asked for delisting in august 2021. Still listed and reply... J. On Tue, 2023-08-15 at 12:29 +0200, Benoit Panizzon via mailop wrote: > Hi Gang > > virusfree.cz is listing one of our mail servers. > > I opened a support case with them

Re: [mailop] DKIM AUID and subdomains

On Sun 20/Aug/2023 12:35:20 +0200 Slavko via mailop wrote: i recently start to sign subdomain's (no bulk, nor mass, nor advertising, etc) mails by parent (main) domain key, mostly to simplify DNS setup, thus mails looks eg.: DKIM-Signature: ... d=example.org From: That works and