On 25-03-09 18:14:26, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2025 at 08:50:17AM +0200, Petko Manolov via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> > On 25-03-08 13:05:42, Peter via Postfix-users wrote: Well, i maybe seeing
> > only in black and white, but if somebody is careless enough to not set SPF
> > and DKIM, they pretty much asked for it. These mechanisms are in place to
> > help fighting spam, after all. So yeah, i hear what you say and it looks
> > that i'll have to adapt my anti-spam strategy based on the feedback i get
> > from the logs.
>
> No, DKIM is not an anti-spam mechanism, it is an optional origin
> authentication mechanism, that can be helpful in applying reputation (be it
> positive or negative) to incoming mail that may have been relayed without
> material modification. And DMARC is far from universal, and even when
> deployed, the policy is often permissive.
Well, one very important property of authenticity is trust.
If a message falsely claim it originates from certain domain and then DKIM fail,
i very much don't want to receive, let alone read, this message. Right?
Again, i'm not pointing a finger here, just want to know what i can expect from
those two milters and eventually understand why they behave the way they do.
Petko
_______________________________________________
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
