John Levine via mailop skrev den 2023-05-24 01:58:
domains with this spf would possible know that spf is more weak then
then rfc 7505 (nullMX) ?
No, not at all.
SPF -all says a domain doesn't sent mail.
+1
if recipient check sender domain, its imho same thing
if recipent do not check send
It appears that Benny Pedersen via mailop said:
>> It seems wholly appropriate to reject at MAIL FROM if the RFC5321.From
>> domain publishes an SPF policy that says "This domain is not used to
>> send mail, ever."
>
>domains with this spf would possible know that spf is more weak then
>then rfc
On Tue, 23 May 2023, at 16:10, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote:
Lots of good responses for alternatives to verifier.port25.com, but
do any of them support aliased feedback address whereby you could
send an email to check-auth-lhs=domain@verifier.port25.com and
the response would be returned
On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 4:13 PM Benny Pedersen via mailop
wrote:
> Todd Herr via mailop skrev den 2023-05-23 20:54:
>
> >> Indeed, an email will only be rejected if it has DMARC setup as
> >> reject.
> >
> > There should be one exception to the rule of waiting till after DATA
> > to check for a D
Heho,
On Tue, 2023-05-23 at 13:31 -0500, Blake Hudson via mailop wrote:
> Looks like the email verification application at verifier.port25.com
> described in this
> (
> https://postmarkapp.com/blog/port25s-authentication-and-spam-assassin-
> tool)
> article may have been shut down.
>
> Anyone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Lots of good responses for alternatives to verifier.port25.com, but
do any of them support aliased feedback address whereby you could
send an email to check-auth-lhs=domain@verifier.port25.com and
the response would be returned to the aliased add
Todd Herr via mailop skrev den 2023-05-23 20:54:
Indeed, an email will only be rejected if it has DMARC setup as
reject.
There should be one exception to the rule of waiting till after DATA
to check for a DMARC policy, and that's in the case of the following
SPF record:
"v=spf1 -all"
It se
I manage this service to validate the SPF and DKIM settings:
1. send an e-mail to s...@tester.realsender.com
2. check online the validation results (it will take a minute to appear)
https://tester.realsender.com/t/spf
Regards
Andrea
On 23/05/2023 20:31, Blake Hudson via mailop wrote:
Looks li
You can try our free tool at emailaudit.com. It is especially strong in
authentication checks.
Maarten
> On 23 May 2023, at 20:31, Blake Hudson via mailop wrote:
>
> Looks like the email verification application at verifier.port25.com
> described in this
> (https://postmarkapp.com/blog/port2
Hi, just tested it and reciveing a valid response email from the verifier.
-Andrew
-Original Message-
From: mailop On Behalf Of Blake Hudson via mailop
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 2:31 PM
To: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: [mailop] verifier.port25.com
Looks like the email verification appl
On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 2:24 PM Alex Liu via mailop
wrote:
> Indeed, an email will only be rejected if it has DMARC setup as reject.
>
There should be one exception to the rule of waiting till after DATA to
check for a DMARC policy, and that's in the case of the following SPF
record:
"v=spf1 -a
Sorry for the shameless plug, but my product, EmailEngine.app has this
built-in and also supports running these tests automatically with an API
call. See here for a fast demo (I use EmailEngine to send out an email from
an SMTP account and get SPF, DKIM and DMARC info in return):
https://www.youtub
For email authentication, dmarctester.com (AKA LearnDMARC) is a good
tool. mail-tester.com is another, and it also performs checks with
SpamAssassin, RBLs, etc.
- Mark Alley
On 5/23/2023 1:31 PM, Blake Hudson via mailop wrote:
Looks like the email verification application at verifier.port25.co
Looks like the email verification application at verifier.port25.com
described in this
(https://postmarkapp.com/blog/port25s-authentication-and-spam-assassin-tool)
article may have been shut down.
Anyone have any insight into this or alternative tools for testing DKIM,
SPF, and similar in one
Indeed, an email will only be rejected if it has DMARC setup as reject.
I can attest that personal email services such as Outlook / MSN do reject
email properly (in case of DMARC fail and the FROM domain has a reject
policy).
On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 7:43 AM Matthäus Wander via mailop <
mailop@m
Benoit Panizzon via mailop wrote on 2023-05-23 15:35:
Hi List
I'm surprised...
six-group.com is the biggest payment platform in Switzerland. Of course
they use SPF to protect their domain from being abused by phishers.
six-group.com does not use DMARC, so I would say there is room to
improve
> It looks like GV0CHE01FT013.mail.protection.outlook.com is happily
accepting phishing emails which, according to SPF should get rejected.
No, they shouldn't.
Specifying how unauthenticated mail from a domain should be treated is
done using DMARC.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptograph
Assuming you're emailing someone that's an Office 365 customer, it's
largely dependent on the receiving tenant's spam filtering configuration
within O365 spam settings and Defender. Exchange Online itself does not
outright reject SPF failure unless a customer has configured it to do so.
- Mark
Hi List
I'm surprised...
six-group.com is the biggest payment platform in Switzerland. Of course
they use SPF to protect their domain from being abused by phishers.
It looks like GV0CHE01FT013.mail.protection.outlook.com is happily
accepting phishing emails which, according to SPF should get rej
I've looked into ARC which looks promising, but ARC is still
experimental according to the wiki page so it's not really an option in
my situation. The case is that addess a...@gmail.com sends a message to
add...@somewhere.tld which has a forward to address b...@gmail.com. So it's
not that the m
OK removed, it was one of 5 DNSBL I have and only triggers if 3 of them report
positive………
JD
> On 22 May 2023, at 23:07, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
>
> On 2023-05-22 at 16:03:32 UTC-0400 (Mon, 22 May 2023 21:03:32 +0100)
> John Devine via mailop mailto:j...@johndevine.co.uk>>
> is rumored to
21 matches
Mail list logo
