On Sun, 19 May 2024, David Conrad wrote:
They provide this to Verisign, the Root Zone Maintainer, who create the
root zone and distribute it to the root server operators.
Technically, IANA provides database change requests to Verisign. The actual
database is maintained by the Root Zone Maintai
On Fri, 17 May 2024, William Herrin wrote:
That said, ICANN generates the root zone including the servers
declared authoritative for the zone.
Nope.
So they do have an ability to
say: nope, you've crossed the line to any of the root operators.
Very very nope.
ICANN as the IANA Functions Op
surprised nobody noticed for close to 10 days. I was away
from work and upon coming back I saw the little discussion there was ,
in my Spam folder.
On Thursday, 16/05/2024 at 18:56 John R. Levine wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024, William Herrin wrote:
The message content (including the message h
On Thu, 16 May 2024, William Herrin wrote:
The message content (including the message headers) is theoretically
not used for SPF validation. In practice, some SPF validators don't
have direct access to the SMTP session so they rely on the SMTP
session placing the envelope sender in the Return-pat
I'm not sure where you saw that message, but I got this message via email
after I submitted an unblock request with Spectrum Shield:
We have reviewed your request to unblock validin.com. This site was not
found to be blocked by Spectrum Shield and should be accessible from your
browser.
Sigh.
Bill is absolutely correct. The spammers lost their case because they
were demonstrably spammers.
No, really they did not. I read the decisions. Have you? Hint: under
CAN SPAM a great deal of spam is completely legal so it didn't matter.
We’ve had accidental black hole cases with *US* prov
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, William Herrin wrote:
Respectfully, you're mistaken. Look up "tortious interference."
I'm familiar with it.
But I am also familar with many cases were spammers have sued network
operators claiming that they're falsely defamed, so the operator has to
deliver their mail.
Maybe Microsoft allows your small domain as an exception? In the mean time,
use Gmail or another cloud provider to get your email.
It may be because I have a few mailing lists that keep the volume up
enough to avoid falling off their radar.
It's kind of ironic that MS throws people's mail aw
Yep, just had another one. Email to local election office silently
vanishes because it uses Office365 Cloud email.
I believe they're throwing your mail away, but it's not just because
you're small. Like I said, I'm just as small and my mail gets there OK.
Needed to use Gmail instead.
On
That it's possible to implement network security well without using
NAT does not contradict the claim that NAT enhances network security.
I think we're each overgeneralizing from our individual expeience.
You can configure a V6 firewall to be default closed as easily as you can
configure a NAT
If anyone has contacts at either I would appreciate it.
https://developer.amazon.com/support/amazonbot
Um, that is the site I mentioned in the line above the one you quoted.
As I said, I wrote to the contact address, no reply.
probably returned as a result of searching "amazonbot" on you
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023, Damian Menscher wrote:
have more redundancy/capacity). Based on these estimates, we haven't
treated mitigation of small attacks as a high priority. If O(25Kpps)
attacks are causing real problems for the community, I'd appreciate that
feedback and some hints as to why your ex
Just set TC=1 for those clients. If you get queries over TCP then they where
not spoofed. If they are using DNS COOKIE (RFC 7873) you can send back
BADCOOKIE to the initial (client cookie only) UDP request with your server
cookie. Identifying real DNS clients has been possible for years now.
cational ISP/enterprise.
So what are most folks doing to survive crap like this? Nothing/waiting it
out? Oursourcing DNS? Scrubbing appliance? Poormans stuff like I mention
above?
-Michael
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On
Behalf Of John R. Levine
Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2023 1:18
Did a bit of digging on Google's developer site and came across this:
https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/faq#locations_of_ip_address_ranges_google_public_dns_uses_to_send_queries
Looks like the IPs you mentioned belong to Google's public DNS resolver
based on that list on their site.
They are probably spoofed IPs. So those are the target IP IPs of a DDoS
What king of amplification factor does your DNS server have? I bet with the
changes you’ve made, it’s super high. People are looking for DNS servers like
that.
On the contrary, the reponse packets are tiny.
$ host -t
On Mon, 30 Oct 2023, Livingood, Jason wrote:
On 10/27/23, 19:01, "NANOG on behalf of Owen DeLong wrote:
If it’s such a reasonable default, why don’t any of the public resolvers (e.g.
1.1.1.1, 8.8.8.8, 9.9.9.9, etc.) do so?
DNS isn’t the right place to attack this, IMHO.
Are we sure that the
If it’s such a reasonable default, why don’t any of the public resolvers (e.g.
1.1.1.1, 8.8.8.8, 9.9.9.9, etc.) do so?
Oh my, you walked right into that one.
https://www.quad9.net/service/threat-blocking/
https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-1-1-1-1-for-families/
I'm also surprised nobody
On Wed, 10 Aug 2022, Billy Croan wrote:
I think a much better answer to the nuisance of leap seconds (their
uncertainty), instead of dropping them all together, MIGHT be let them
build up for a century and deal with it every hundred years or every
thousand. Maybe every decade?
Sheesh. In pract
I did manage to get someone to flip the setting so hopefully I’m not getting a
lot of bounce back from this e-mail.
Once again, if you were getting bounces, they had nothing to do with DMARC
because you don't publish a DMARC policy.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator
And here are some actual test results:
https://www.rtca.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SC-239-5G-Interference-Assessment-Report_274-20-PMC-2073_accepted_changes.pdf
People who understand radios don't think much of that report or the
similar AVSI one. If its claims were true, planes would be f
Um, are you suggesting there is sufficiently heavy use of 240/4 to
result in a significant security/stability issue if the address space is
allocated? I thought you were arguing too many systems would have to be
updated to even send/receive packets with 240/4 in the source or
destination field
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, John Gilmore wrote:
Major networks are already squatting on the space internally, because they
tried it and it works.
Sounds like an excellent reason not to try to use it for global unicast.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Du
The only way IPv6 will ever be ubiquitous is if there comes a time where
there is some forcing event that requires it to be.
Unless that occurs, people will continue to spend time and energy coming up
with ways to squeeze the blood out of v4 that could have been used to get
v6 going instead.
I
The only effort involved on the IETF's jurisdiction was to stop squatting on
240/4 and perhaps maybe some other small pieces of IPv4 that could possibly
be better used elsewhere by others who may choose to do so.
The IETF is not the Network Police, and all IETF standards are entirely
voluntary
As you noted John, its the plethora of software, support systems, tooling,
and most important in many environments - legacy customer management and
provisioning systems that can be the limiting factor. ...
Just looking around my office, I have a Cisco SPA112 two-port ATA. It's
been discontinue
OK, then Disney+ or Hulu or whoever. Peering wars never end well. Don't even
need postcards, just stick the flyer in with the bill.
Is that really cheaper and easier than deploying IPv6? Really?
The cost of putting flyers in the bills rounds to zero, so yes, really.
I expect these companie
Indeed. They would send postcards to all their customers saying
"Comcast has said they will cut off your access to Netflix on April 1,
Call their president's office at 1-800-xxx- and tell them what you think."
Nope… Netflix is fully available on IPv6 and actually looks forward to ISPs
doing
Same here. I have not publicised or updated my korea.services.net DNSBL
for over a decade and it's still getting over 100 qps.
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021, Sabri Berisha wrote:
- On Mar 26, 2021, at 8:20 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Hi,
Also keep in mind that "most blocklists" is mean
I see that www.cdc.gov is a CNAME for www.akam.cdc.gov. which in turn is a
CNAME for www.cdc.gov.edgekey.net.
But it appears that while www.cdc.gov is signed, www.akam.cdc.gov in
the same zone on the same server is not. Huh? What?
$ dig @ns1.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov +dnssec
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode:
I think it is reasonably clear this was a reference to the Iroquois Theatre
fire where 602 people died.
Not at all. The actual quote is
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man
falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.
The Iroquois fire was unfortun
a czds dl, however, shows:
You're right, I checked again.
:; zgrep -E ^dns-auth.\.crocker\.com com.txt.gz
dns-auth1.crocker.com. 172800 in a 66.59.48.87
dns-auth2.crocker.com. 172800 in a 66.59.48.88
dns-auth3.crocker.com. 172800 in a 66.59.48.94
dns-auth
Most DNS registers avoid verifying customer information as long as the
payment clears (for a short time). DKIM (and DNSSEC) is built on top of
trusting tokens from third-parties which disclaim all liability.
Right. The only promise that DKIM makes is that if you have a stream of
mail signed
In article ,
Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 11:05 PM Brian J. Murrell
wrote:
> So, if my telco can bill the callers for those premium calls, they
> surely know who they are, or at least know where they are sending the
> bill and getting payment from.
You are mistaken, billin
I have no problem paying an extra $3/year for my .com IF every domain
speculator must also pay an extra $3 for each of their .coms. Is that
what's happening here?
Yes. The contract very clearly says that everyone pays the same renewal
price to the registry.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.
PS: You also wouldn't believe how cheap the power is. California's
prices are high compared to most of the US, but it's still only about
€0.15 per KWh.
I don't know where you live, but I pay around 38 cents/KWh. Depending
on your rate, that can go up to 53 cents/KWh during peak times.
16x is
Someone up-thread noted that my personal domain is hosted on google
groups. I've noticed in the past that the behaviour of gmail.com can be
very different from the behaviour of a paid mail domain like mine...
Google says that every user's spam filtering is different. It's not just
free vs. pa
Though I agree that Gmail spam filtering is top grade, or close to be so,
it still sends to spam a statistically significant number of emails from
IETF and ICANN mailing lists I'm subscribed to. It depends as well on
which account I should receive those emails.
Yes, that's mostly the DMARC prob
Can I summarize the current round of objections to my admittedly
off-beat proposal (use basically URLs rather than IP addresses in IP
packet src/dest) as:
We can't do that! It would require changing something!
Nope. You can summarize it as "it doesn't scale", which is what has
killed endless
In article ,
Stephen Satchell wrote:
My AT&T cell phone has both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. The IPv4 address
is from my access point; the IPv6 address appears to be a public address.
My AT&T cellphone (via MVNO Tracfone) has a 10/8 IPv4 address and IPv6
address 2600:380:28be:8b34:2504:2096:6ac
Yes, obviously they are trying multiple levers--but who gets to draw the
line, where are they going to draw it, and why do they get to decide for me?
What prevents an absurd 'solution' like "We can not only stop child
molestation, but rape in general if we just castrate everyone" from being
one of
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019, Matt Harris wrote:
I think ultimately the perception of the work required to deploy IPv6 is a
much greater hurdle to IPv6 adoption than the actual work required to
deploy IPv6.
I'm describing my actual experience, so we'll have to disagree here.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@
I assumed my point was obvious but evidently I overestimated my audience.
While it is stupid to assert that the only reason to circumvent DNS
filters is to look at child abuse material, it is equally stupid to assert
that the only reason to filter is to lie, or to censor.
There are plenty of
FYI:
SMTP transitioned from A to MX.
No, it didn't. A surprising number of real mail hosts only publish an A,
and I lost the battle to say that MX shouldn't fall back to . It
does.
SPF could have been the same except people were impatient and had
unrealistic expectations of how long
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019, Mark Andrews wrote:
Agreed. Additionally it suddenly went from something being done along
with a experiment to being “a experiment on can you transition to a new
type”. The transition to type99 was well underway. ...
No, really, we had numbers. Approximately nobody was u
And you won't really have a choice because unless you're willing to go
full Ted Kaczynski one in a hundred of those emails will be very, very
important to you ...
Yeah. E-mail remains the only scheme where the two parties
don't have to be introduced first, don't have to be online at the same
You *can* get a fax across a G.711 connection if your throughput,
My SIP provider supports T.38. How much difference does that make?
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.l
Can anyone recommend software that sends faxes over SIP? I have plenty of
inbound fax to email services, but now and then I need to send a reply and
it looks tacky to use one of the free web ones that put an ad on it.
I know that if I wanted to pay $15/mo there are lots of lovely services
but
I am sure these third world nations have more important things to spend
their money on rather than data plans and data devices. Things like food
and medicine come to mind...
My goodness, aren't we condescending. Since we're talking about Kenya
here, a few milliseconds of research reminds us th
In article
,
Matthew Petach wrote:
Your 200mbit/sec link that costs you $300 in hardware
is going to cost you $4960/month to actually get IP traffic
across, in Nairobi. Yes, that's about $60,000/year.
Nonetheless, Safaricom sells entirely usable data plans. A one day
1GB bundle on a prepa
This looks like a willy-waving exercise by Cloudflare coming up with the lowest
quad-digit IP. They must have known that this would cause routing issues, and
now suddenly it's our responsibility to make significant changes to live
infrastructures just so they can continue to look clever with the I
ocument the chain of
ownership, and conspiracy theories about how the evil RIRs are planning
to steal our precious bodily flu^W^WIPs, but "put it in a blockchain!"
Puhleeze.
R's,
John
On Tue, 23 Jan 2018, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 10:22 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On
How about validating whether a given AS is an acceptable origin for a set
of prefixes? Seems like a problem (route hijacking) that's still been
looking for a solution. Lots of BGP routers, RRs, prefix databases are
around, maintained and generally online. Current practices are incomplete
and for m
Alas, these RBLs are often hard-coded into firewalls. Non-sophisticated
users just think they have a check box saying "block spam". Fixing those
IS hard.
I believe there are cases where people have made it hard, but there are
limits on how much I believe in protecting people from the consequen
In article <6134b4a7-9da8-2935-e9f6-e4374b3fd...@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>,
Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-dkim-conditional/
The only way that I can think of is for the originating mail server to
DKIM sign the message twice, 1st with the classi
Yeah, that's what ARC is intended to do.
Hum. My understanding of ARC is that it's a way for a server to assert
things about what it received. - Where as my interpretation of what we were
discussing is the sender authorizing intermediary MTAs to send the message.
The former is after the f
It's a one way correlation. If the rDNS is busted, you can be pretty
sure you don't want the mail. If the rDNS is OK, you need more clues.
Pretty sure, but far from certain.
Even this one-way correlation is rather tenuous. It’s mostly harmless because
everyone knows that mail servers are filt
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016, Florian Weimer wrote:
If we want to make consumers to make informed decisions, they need to
learn how things work up to a certain level. And then current
technology already works.
I think it's fair to say that security through consumer education has been
a failure every t
This is where device profiles could help. If enough devices register
profiles with the local router, at some point the router's default
could be closed, so devices with no profile can't talk to the outside.
That would be nice, but a manufacturer who can't be bothered to take even the
most basi
This is where device profiles could help. If enough devices register
profiles with the local router, at some point the router's default
could be closed, so devices with no profile can't talk to the outside.
Are you thinking of MUD (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud/) here,
Therein lies the problem if the traffic does not look anomalous I suppose. But
even if it does look unusual, ISPs would be asking consumers to
trash/update/turn off a lot of devices in time – like when every home has 10s
or 100s of these devices.
ISP: Dear customer, looks like one of your light
If we're talking about networks with that kind of MRC, is it really that far
of a stretch to require PI space for this? Then again: If we're talking
about that kind of MRC, then I'm assuming ISP A can be coaxed to allow
explicit and well-defined exceptions on the customer's links.
Yes.
A) C
It’s safe to ignore the silent minority that cannot really tell what is
happening in most cases, but that doesn’t mean it “works” for any standard I
would consider valid.
Huh. So you're saying Bill Woodcock doesn't have the skills to see how
his traffic is failing?
Regards,
John Levine, jo
https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/01_5.pdf
The attack is triggered by a few spoofs somewhere in the world. It is not
feasible to stop this.
That paper is about reflection attacks. From what I've read, this was not
a reflection attack. The IoT devices are infected with botwa
So maybe 10% of all cell phones are primarly used in the "wrong" area?
Out of curiosity, does anyone have a good pointer to the history of
how / why US mobile ended up in the same numbering plan as fixed-line?
The US and most of the rest of North America have a fixed length
numbering plan des
Since then, I’ve been pretty much satisfied with my service from callcentric
and the price is right.
That's who I use. Now there's just a box on the web site to say not in
the US.
R's,
John
NANP geographical numbers can be located to a switch (give
or take number portability within a LATA), but non-geographic numbers
can really go anywhere. On the third hand, it's still true that the
large majority of them are in the U.S.
Would you agree that 408-921 is a geographic number?
No.
- a link from that top-level page to the whole list, in regex-aware,
whois.conf-compatible format
What uses whois.conf? Not the whois on my FreeBSD or Mac.
Or you can just use this shell script:
#!/bin/bash
WHOISHOST=${1##*.}.ws.sp.am
exec whois -h $WHOISHOST $*
R's,
John
I've set up .ws.sp.am (that's ws for Whois Server) which is
updated every day from a variety of sources so it's pretty accurate.
It's had the right server for pro.ws.sp.am all along.
Hey, that's fantastic!
Feature request: could you provide a human- and machine-readable one-stop
extract at the
Given that a lot of these updates are happening in the background
without any interaction with the users
maybe for your customers, but not so true for our user base or others
with which i have experience. wise folk want control of patching. and
it's not only IT departments, but end users.
Th
At this point very few client resolvers check DNSSEC, so something
that stripped off all the DNSSEC stuff and inserted lies where
required would "work" for most clients. At least until they realized
they couldn't get to PokerStars and switched their DNS to 8.8.8.8.
If the ISPs don’t start block
Hey!
New message, please read <http://livingnspired.com/chapter.php?77h>
John R. Levine
Hey!
New message, please read <http://moverdubai.net/heart.php?r>
John R. Levine
When I try to contact whois.ripe.net (2001:67c:2e8:22::c100:687) or
their REST server rest.db.ripe.net (2001:67c:2e8:22::c100:68e), it
times out. Traceroutes from a couple of different places all seem to
loop in Amsterdam, IPv4 is fine.
Am I special, or is it just broken?
I guess I was speci
Are you really equating an incremental silent update to remove something
between one if statement or slightly more and an entire protocol stack that
when active fundamentally changes the host networking behavior?
Yeah. On the devices I have, there's no practical difference between a
one line
It would be nice if it were possible to implement BCP 38 in IPv6, since this
is the reason it isn't in IPv4.
There isn't any technical reason that an organization can't fix its edge
so it doesn't urinate bad IPv6 traffic all over the Internet.
In IPv4 systems, the problem is (so I have been to
What about dual-homed customers? Or are they all expected to have their own
PI space?
This is IPv6. Why shouldn't they have their own PI space?
R's,
John
We're talking about end user assignments made by ISPs, not ISP
assignments. An ISP's /32 is likely the only entry one needs in the FIB.
In that case, why should anyone care how the ISP assigns space to its
customers?
R's,
John
The OP was correct, if they can send you your cleartext password then
their security practices are inadequate, period.
Unless I misunderstand what you're saying (I sort of hope I do) this
is Security 101.
As I've said a couple of times already, but perhaps without the capital
letters, from a s
If they can e-mail you your existing password (*cough*Netgear*cough*),
it means they are storing your credentials in the database
un-encrypted.
What I had in mind was creating a new password and mailing you that.
R's,
John
I get what you are saying but my point was more about lack of crypto or
reversible crypto than stealing the account.
I am all in favor of using crypto when it improves security. But I am
also in favor of not obsessing about it in places where it makes no
difference.
I like what Owen is desc
Also, do you need line rate forwarding? Having 1,000 devices with 1Gb
uplinks doesn't necessarily mean that full throughput is required... the
clustering and the applications may be sporadic and bursty?
It's definitely sporadic and bursty. There's another network for high
speed traffic among
The first thing that came to mind was "Bitcoin farm!" then "Ask Bitmaintech" and then
"I'd be more worried about the number of fans and A/C units".
I promise, no bitcoins involved.
R's,
John
https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/873?hl=en
He says he sent in the IP update three weeks ago, nothing happened. Any
other suggestions?
On 7 April 2015 at 23:26, John Levine wrote:
A friend of mine lives in Alabama and has business service from at&t.
But Google thinks he's in
Please provide legal citations.
ignore a dmca takedown request, see what happens.
I know people who have ignored lots of DMCA notices. Of course, it was
pretty clear that the notices were bogus.
R's,
John
http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/civilliability.html
Nothing there about ISP liability other than noting the third-party
immunity from the CDA.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2009/06/ftc-shuts-down-notorious-rogue
As I said above, retail customers. Business customers get static IPs and
generaly no blocking.
Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it.
I'm in a T-W area, haven't checked Comcast's prices lately. But if you
don't have a static IP, it's a poor idea to try t
Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US
currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers.
Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam
from Comcast customers:
Well, it's supposed to be blocked, according to people I've talked
So long as the broadband service provider's e-mail filtering is
performed only on their e-mail server and does not involve blocking IP
traffic on consumers' connections.
Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US currently
blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail custom
With the "legal content" rule, I expect some bottom feeding bulk
mailers to sue claiming that their CAN SPAM compliant spam is legal,
therefore the providers can't block it.
How would this legal environment be any different than the pre-Verizon
network neutrality rules for network management of
I expect your users would fire you when they found you'd blocked access to
Google.
And they would sue you for gross negligence for decrypting their ssn when
access company payroll and cpni data
May I suggest that playing Junior Lawyer on nanog rarely turns out well.
These filter boxes are ty
ARIN, APNIC, and RIPE have prototypes already that are a lot easier to
script than the text WHOIS.
Meaning the data structure is in place or they have a RDAP service up?
Both. ARIN's and RIPE's are based on early versions so the URLs and JSON
aren't quite what RDAP says they should be yet.
I just with Wifi calling was ubiquitous.
isn't it in every android phone since ~1yr ago?
Yes, but it works poorly when walking the dog.
R's,
John
Although this might not apply to you in the US, anyone else thinking about
trying this might want to check up on possible legal backlash from using one of
these devices. I know you can't legally use one of these in Dubai.
These are sold by the carriers and are completely legal here.
On 16 De
There’s a big difference between illegal and civil liability for breech of
contract.
If I am paying someone for access to the internet, then I expect them not to
modify, alter, rewrite, or otherwise interfere with my packets.
If they do so, they may not have violated 47 USC 230, but they have
I find the /50 particularly odd as it's not a nibble boundary and very
close to /48. It's almost certain this is an operator who fails to grasp
that they could have easily gotten a larger allocation from their RIR if
they just asked for it and provided the appropriate justification in
terms of
On 4/9/2014 5:45 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
procmail is a rewrite of MMDF mailfilter. badly.
Thanks, but I believe it slightly preceded MMDF's equivalent facility. On the
average, Allman put comparable features into sendmail sooner than I did.
Procmail's user interface, if you can call it
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:11 PM, wrote:
and just how is an algorithm supposed to detect that
is a single human and not a list?
If the autoresponder is sane, it looks for:
List-Id: North American Network Operators Group
Yes, there are a lot of headers that give you a hint t
This highly effective trick was in the procmail example vacation script in
1991, and doubtless goes back much farther than that. It's a little
dismaying to hear that there are still people writing autoresponders who
don't know about it.
what is procmail?
The scriptable mail delivery agent tha
2: introduce an "Original Authentication Results" header to indicate
you have performed the authentication and you are validating it
This was someone's hack that doesn't work. The idea is that you make an
RFC5451 Authentication-Results header for the incoming message, change the
name to origi
1 - 100 of 179 matches
Mail list logo