Sebastian Nielsen wrote:
> Another way, that is the preferred RFC way to do it, is to encapsulate the
> mail in a new message/rfc822 container, and adding Fwd: to the original
> subject of the outside container.
> (This is how most mail clients "forward" a message)
I can't speak to most of the re
Isn't this SRS SPF about? http://www.openspf.org/SRS
ner in postfix, but anyways it should be possible to do
with a milter, if you want to set up a forwarding postfix server.
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] För li...@lazygranch.com
Skickat: den 14 april 2016 03:11
Till: postfix
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:08:57 -0700
li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
> Yesterday's Google report had me passing. Could be related to adding
> the Google term to DNS.
>
Hold the presses here. It turns out my domain was spoofed in the
report that failed. The IP address used isn't mine. In the passing
re
Yesterday's Google report had me passing. Could be related to adding the Google
term to DNS.
Original Message
From: Tom Hendrikx
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 12:38 AM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Special method required for Gmail dkim/spf verification
On 13-04-16
On 13-04-16 01:54, li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
> Google sent me a "fail" on my DMARC. Everyone else seems happy. It
> turns out much like Google not accepting robots.txt for some search
> engines controls, they expect special fields in their DNS.
>
> https://support.google.com/mail/answer/62271
Google sent me a "fail" on my DMARC. Everyone else seems happy. It turns out
much like Google not accepting robots.txt for some search engines controls,
they expect special fields in their DNS.
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6227174
Why? Because we're Google and we can.
