Then again, the customer service department for an item I ordered has no DKIM. The company is using netsuite.com as a portal. I suppose I can try to contact their IT...
I found another legit emailer with SPF but no DKIM. A corporate user that is using a barracuda service of some sort. I've yet to find email from an actual person that doesn't have DKIM or SPF. It is the "and" that doesn't work. One of the email verification services put me in the top 3% of servers based on security. At the time, I though that was nuts. But looking typical email headers, that might be true. Original Message From: jaso...@mail-central.com Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 4:08 PM To: postfix-users@postfix.org Subject: Re: reality-check on 2016 practical advice re: requiring inbound TLS? On Sun, Apr 10, 2016, at 03:13 PM, Bill Cole wrote: > On 9 Apr 2016, at 12:45, jaso...@mail-central.com wrote: > > > I block on strict FAILs of any if SPF, DKIM or DMARC. *missing* > > support for those is logged, but not - yet - acted on. > > as is raising the bar too high on ciphersuites. That I'm sold on. > This is dangerous, This, not so much. > Case in point: Ditech ... Great example & reminder. But, (1) I'm not an ESP (2) If a company publishes a policy, then fails to follow it, not my problem. It's theirs. Yep I know that that's gonna cost me some 'Ditech-esque' mail. > Welcome to 2016: Sturgeon's Law remains in effect. Unfortunately, Sturgeon -- as was Orwell -- was an optimist :-/ Jason
