On Thu, 4 Feb 2021, Jeff Abrahamson wrote:
2(a) I get lots of dmarc reports. After looking at a few, I started
pushing them to a special dmarc mailbox where I don't have to see
them. Is there any sense in which these are actionable ? Should I
occasionally look at them or set a machine to loo
Correcting myself:
On 4 Feb 2021, at 11:47, Bill Cole wrote:
However it is so easy to break a DKIM signature, especially if the
'strict' canonicalization is specified,
s/strict/simple/
The 'simple' canonicalizations for headers and body are strict in that
they do very little to eliminate th
On 4 Feb 2021, at 9:44, Jeff Abrahamson wrote:
I've a couple security/spam questions for the more experienced.
1(a) A while back Gary noted the very useful
http://dkimvalidator.com/ . It has the curious habit of
simultaneously saying
Validating Signature
result = pass
Details:
On 2021-02-04 16:42, Dirk Stöcker wrote:
But if you have DKIM_INVALID for valid messages then something is not
working.
your dkim signer do c=relaxed/simple; with gives spamassassin invalid
as i understand you there is verifiers that says its valid ?
that c= is imho default in opendkim, but
Hello,
I don't think you're in the right forum for these questions, as they
aren't really realted to postfix.
0.1 DKIM_INVALID DKIM or DK signature exists, but is not valid
Is this normal or a point for worry? It did say "not spam".
I'd assume you did not add a milter which
On 2021-02-04 15:54, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
Dnia 4.02.2021 o godz. 15:44:20 Jeff Abrahamson pisze:
0.1 DKIM_INVALID DKIM or DK signature exists, but is
not
valid
Is this normal or a point for worry? It did say "not spam".
I have noticed that it is common for SpamAssassin to sa
Dnia 4.02.2021 o godz. 15:44:20 Jeff Abrahamson pisze:
> 0.1 DKIM_INVALID DKIM or DK signature exists, but is not
> valid
>
> Is this normal or a point for worry? It did say "not spam".
I have noticed that it is common for SpamAssassin to say DKIM_INVALID for
perfectly correctly
