On 04/26/2011 09:16 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 04/26/2011 05:08 PM, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Apr 25, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
If you trust the issued certificates(!) being used to sign the mail, you at
least have a good indication that the spam is coming from the domain that it
On 04/26/2011 05:08 PM, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Apr 25, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
If you trust the issued certificates(!) being used to sign the mail, you at
least have a good indication that the spam is coming from the domain that it
says it's coming from. This can make spam bl
On Apr 25, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> If you trust the issued certificates(!) being used to sign the mail, you at
> least have a good indication that the spam is coming from the domain that it
> says it's coming from. This can make spam blocking much more effective
> because inst
On 4/22/2011 4:24 PM, Lynda wrote:
Nearly all of the spam I see is DKIM signed. It just makes messages bigger.
I'd just as soon our volunteers spend their times on other things, myself.
In the off-chance you are assuming that the presence of a DKIM signature is
supposed to mean something abo
On 04/22/2011 07:24 PM, Lynda wrote:
Non existent, it's SPF only.
My point.
Nearly all of the spam I see is DKIM signed. It just makes messages
bigger. I'd just as soon our volunteers spend their times on other
things, myself.
DKIM isn't designed explicitly to stop spam, it's designed to id
On 4/23/11 11:24 , "Lynda" wrote:
>On 4/22/2011 4:01 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>>
>> On 4/23/11 10:41 , "Alex Brooks" wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Franck Martin
>>> wrote:
What is the DKIM check result for those messages?
>>>
>>> Non existent, it's SPF only.
>>
>> My poin
On 4/21/11 9:24 PM, Bill Blackford wrote:
I've recently observed gmail dropping messages or not forwarding all
messages/posts from the nanog list. This is rather annoying.
Has anyone else experienced this? Does anyone have any insight as to why?
I've read the thread, and ironically all messag
On 4/22/2011 4:01 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
On 4/23/11 10:41 , "Alex Brooks" wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Franck Martin
wrote:
What is the DKIM check result for those messages?
Non existent, it's SPF only.
My point.
Nearly all of the spam I see is DKIM signed. It just makes m
On 4/23/11 10:41 , "Alex Brooks" wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Franck Martin
>wrote:
>> What is the DKIM check result for those messages?
>
>Non existent, it's SPF only.
My point.
>
>This is what GMail sees:
>
>Received: from s0.nanog.org (s0.nanog.org [207.75.116.162])
>by
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> What is the DKIM check result for those messages?
Non existent, it's SPF only.
This is what GMail sees:
Received: from s0.nanog.org (s0.nanog.org [207.75.116.162])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h1si7255610ibn.43.2011.04.22.13.42.
What is the DKIM check result for those messages?
May be time to get nanog mailing list DKIM aware?
On 4/22/11 13:24 , "Bill Blackford" wrote:
>I've recently observed gmail dropping messages or not forwarding all
>messages/posts from the nanog list. This is rather annoying.
>
>Has anyone else
ok, there are some in the spam folder. Hmm, didn't think to look there
for the missing ones when my inbox appears to be receivng partial
threads.
Thanks,
-b
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Bill Blackford wrote:
>> I've recently obse
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Bill Blackford wrote:
> I've recently observed gmail dropping messages or not forwarding all
> messages/posts from the nanog list. This is rather annoying.
>
> Has anyone else experienced this? Does anyone have any insight as to why?
sometimes nanog mail gets mar
13 matches
Mail list logo
