That´s weird. I just tested this with simple/simple, relaxed/simple,
relaxed/relaxed and simple/relaxed, all with a 2048 bits key, but all my
messages got accepted. Can you reproduce this issue and share me the
content of the mail (ncluding headers) that had the issue?
I did send you something
On Sun, 2021-04-11 at 04:13 +0200, Thomas Bohl wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > In the filter-dkimsign readme I suggest to use 2048 and I stand by it.
>
> Thanks for mentioning and coding filter-dkimsign! Somehow I was unaware
> of it. I used rspamd just for DKIM. Which is overkill. The daemon racks
> up
Hello,
In the filter-dkimsign readme I suggest to use 2048 and I stand by it.
Thanks for mentioning and coding filter-dkimsign! Somehow I was unaware
of it. I used rspamd just for DKIM. Which is overkill. The daemon racks
up nearly 28000 daily DNS requests to free services (like dnswl.org,
In the filter-dkimsign readme I suggest to use 2048 and I stand by it.
>From RFC1035:
is a single
length octet followed by that number of characters.
is treated as binary information, and can be up to 256 characters in
length (including the length octet).
Followed by:
TXT-DATAOne or
Hello,
I only recently started to use DKIM and DMARC. (Yesterday to be
exact. Now mails to Gmail go to the inbox and not the spam-folder.
Which is nice.) I started with a 1024 bits RSA key.
I followed
