FW: RE: Solved: Was: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins

2007-07-24 Thread Michael Scheidell
Jul 2007 12:12:11 +0200 Subject: NDN: RE: Solved: Was: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins X-Mailer: FirstClass 8.3 (build 8.283) X-FC-Icon-ID: 2031 X-FC-SERVER-TZ: 181272840 X-FC-MachineGenerated: true To: "Michael Scheidell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] M

RE: Solved: Was: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins

2007-07-24 Thread Michael Scheidell
> -Original Message- > From: Bill Landry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 6:16 PM > To: Michael Scheidell > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: Solved: Was: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins > > > Michael Scheidell wrote: >

Re: Solved: Was: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins

2007-07-23 Thread Bill Landry
Michael Scheidell wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Bill Landry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 8:56 AM >> To: Michael Scheidell >> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Solved: Was: DKIM vs DomainKeys plug

RE: Solved: Was: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins

2007-07-23 Thread Michael Scheidell
> -Original Message- > From: Bill Landry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 8:56 AM > To: Michael Scheidell > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: Solved: Was: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins > > > Michael Scheidell wrote: &

Re: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins

2007-07-23 Thread Matt Kettler
Michael Scheidell wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 11:21 AM >> To: Michael Scheidell >> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org >> Subject: Re: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins >>

Re: Solved: Was: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins

2007-07-23 Thread Bill Landry
Michael Scheidell wrote: > Here is what I found out: > > You only need the DKIM SpamAssassin plugin activated (you don't need the > DomainKeys plugin) BUT, you need BOTH Mail-DKIM (> .20) perl AND > Mail-DomainKkeys perl functions loaded. > I suppose the SA DKIM plugin works for both. > > (I am

RE: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins

2007-07-23 Thread Michael Scheidell
> -Original Message- > From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 11:21 AM > To: Michael Scheidell > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins > > > Looking at the messages, apparently verizon

Solved: Was: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins

2007-07-23 Thread Michael Scheidell
Here is what I found out: You only need the DKIM SpamAssassin plugin activated (you don't need the DomainKeys plugin) BUT, you need BOTH Mail-DKIM (> .20) perl AND Mail-DomainKkeys perl functions loaded. I suppose the SA DKIM plugin works for both. (I am not sure that was clear on INSTALL) Than

Re: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins

2007-07-22 Thread Matt Kettler
Michael Scheidell wrote: > Ok, seems to work now, not sure why it wasn't. > > Thanks all. > Not sure why it wasn't either. However, the test message I sent you, and CCed to my verizon address, failed. but a copy sent back to my own yahoo account passed. Looking at the messages, apparently veri

RE: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins

2007-07-22 Thread Michael Scheidell
Ok, seems to work now, not sure why it wasn't. Thanks all. -- Michael Scheidell, CTO SECNAP Network Security Corporation Keep up to date with latest information on IT security: Real time security alerts: http://www.secnap.com/news

Re: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins

2007-07-21 Thread Bill Landry
Michael Scheidell wrote the following on 7/21/2007 10:07 AM -0800: > >> -Original Message- >> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 10:38 PM >> To: Michael Scheidell >> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org >>

RE: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins

2007-07-21 Thread Michael Scheidell
> -Original Message- > From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 10:38 PM > To: Michael Scheidell > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins > > However, AFAIK, the DKIM versions of the rul

Re: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins

2007-07-20 Thread Matt Kettler
Michael Scheidell wrote: > Matt Kettler wrote: >> >> Michael Scheidell wrote: >> > SA 3.2.1 INSTALL seems to indicate that if I use Mail-DKIM .20 or >> > better, I don't need Mail-DomainKeys. >> > >> > > I loaded Mail-DomainKeys perl libraries and will be doing some testing > to see if I can see wh

Re: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins

2007-07-20 Thread Michael Scheidell
Matt Kettler wrote: Michael Scheidell wrote: > SA 3.2.1 INSTALL seems to indicate that if I use Mail-DKIM .20 or > better, I don't need Mail-DomainKeys. > I loaded Mail-DomainKeys perl libraries and will be doing some testing to see if I can see what and why, and will post it later. ( have u

Re: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins

2007-07-20 Thread Matt Kettler
Michael Scheidell wrote: > SA 3.2.1 INSTALL seems to indicate that if I use Mail-DKIM .20 or > better, I don't need Mail-DomainKeys. > > Because of this, I removed the Mail-DomainKeys dependency from the > FreeBsd SA port (I am the official maintainer) > > I have seen a couple of issues that indica

DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins

2007-07-19 Thread Michael Scheidell
SA 3.2.1 INSTALL seems to indicate that if I use Mail-DKIM .20 or better, I don't need Mail-DomainKeys. Because of this, I removed the Mail-DomainKeys dependency from the FreeBsd SA port (I am the official maintainer) I have seen a couple of issues that indicate that maybe, Mail-DKIM isn't