On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Joel Beckham wrote:
> Thanks, Vick. I'm curious, what initially lead you to exclude the
> message-id from your signature?
>
We sign in our application, and let the MTA throw in the Message-ID. Always
did it that way. I also let the MTA insert the required Date h
On 16-05-27 09:19 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
It's also a bad idea operationally, as it will break things like
loop detection, it will complicate problem diagnosis, and it will
break anti-spam/anti-abuse mechanisms that rely on Message-ID.
---rsk
+1
--
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 02:25:13PM -0600, Joel Beckham wrote:
> I'm working towards p=reject on bombbomb.com and found that Securence /
> usinternet.com (A forwarder) gets a measurable percentage of our mail and
> modifies the message-id in the process.
There's the problem. They should not be doi
Thanks, Vick. I'm curious, what initially lead you to exclude the
message-id from your signature?
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Vick Khera wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> I don't sign my message-id. In fact, I let my MTA create the Message-ID
> header and I sign before that in my application. Never bee
Thanks for the input!
Steve -- I've been on a couple calls with Securence and they're not willing
to stop the message-id modification. They did offer to tack on .invalid to
the FROM address to bypass our DMARC, but I'm not a big fan of that idea.
They said they're handling each p=reject on a case-
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Joel Beckham wrote:
> Are there any negative consequences to consider before excluding
> message-id from our signature?
>
> ...found that Securence / usinternet.com (A forwarder) gets a measurable
> percentage of our mail and modifies the message-id in the process
> On May 26, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Joel Beckham wrote:
>
> Are there any negative consequences to consider before excluding message-id
> from our signature?
>
> I'm working towards p=reject on bombbomb.com and found that Securence /
> usinternet.com (A forwarder) gets a measurable percentage of o
Are there any negative consequences to consider before excluding message-id
from our signature?
I'm working towards p=reject on bombbomb.com and found that Securence /
usinternet.com (A forwarder) gets a measurable percentage of our mail and
modifies the message-id in the process. This breaks our
