On Sat, 20 May 2017 14:02:48 -0500 (CDT)
Dave Funk wrote:
> When you get major amounts of Ham from O-365 most of the tokens
> derived from O-365 messages get 0.000 score. So when spammers use
> O-365 even blatant spam gets a Bayes score of 00%. (and this is after
> putting all the O-365 headers in
On Sat, 20 May 2017, David Jones wrote:
From: David B Funk
[snip..]
The message from you that I'm replying to here (both the one that came directly
to me and the copy I got thru the Apache list server) are -totally- devoid of
DKIM headers. (If you'd like to see it I can put it up in paste-bi
>From: David B Funk
>On Fri, 19 May 2017, David Jones wrote:
>>> From: David B Funk
>>
>>> On Fri, 19 May 2017, RW wrote:
>>
On Fri, 19 May 2017 14:13:22 -0500 (CDT)
David B Funk wrote:
ne.
>
> My read on this is that "@ena.com" is living dangerously. They
On Fri, 19 May 2017 22:40:41 +0200
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> problem with rfcs for dmarc is that its not possible to whitelist
> maillists servers so thay never reject on policy reject, what would
> happend if we all reject on a single domain that have policy
> reject ?, then no one would be subs
On Fri, 19 May 2017, David Jones wrote:
From: David B Funk
On Fri, 19 May 2017, RW wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2017 14:13:22 -0500 (CDT)
David B Funk wrote:
ne.
My read on this is that "@ena.com" is living dangerously. They
publish SPF records and DMARC records (with p=reject) but do NOT DK
Alan Hodgson skrev den 2017-05-19 22:34:
Well, it's not the list. Others' signatures are coming through fine.
problem is that dkim is not showing to apache.org mailserver, so
downstream testing dmarc rejects, undesired config in many ways
I had to tell OpenDMARC to whitelist ena.com to get
David Jones skrev den 2017-05-19 21:36:
SPF:PASS with IP 96.5.1.12
DKIM: PASS with domain ena.com
DMARC: PASS
authentication-results: spamassassin.apache.org; dkim=none (message not
signed) header.d=none;spamassassin.apache.org; dmarc=none action=none
header.from=ena.com;
is somethin
On Friday 19 May 2017 20:11:42 David Jones wrote:
> >Urgg, I see that now. I looked at a few of David Jones' posts to this list
> >and saw that they weren't DKIM signed, so I extrapolated that to a general
> >asumption.
>
> They are DKIM signed so something must be striping the headers.
>
Well,
>From: David B Funk
>On Fri, 19 May 2017, RW wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 May 2017 14:13:22 -0500 (CDT)
>> David B Funk wrote:
>>
>> ne.
>>>
>>> My read on this is that "@ena.com" is living dangerously. They
>>> publish SPF records and DMARC records (with p=reject) but do NOT DKIM
>>> sign their mai
On Fri, 19 May 2017, RW wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2017 14:13:22 -0500 (CDT)
David B Funk wrote:
ne.
My read on this is that "@ena.com" is living dangerously. They
publish SPF records and DMARC records (with p=reject) but do NOT DKIM
sign their mail.
Most of them pass DKIM, a minority aren't sig
>From: RW
>On Fri, 19 May 2017 14:13:22 -0500 (CDT)
>David B Funk wrote:
>ne.
>>
>> My read on this is that "@ena.com" is living dangerously. They
>> publish SPF records and DMARC records (with p=reject) but do NOT DKIM
>> sign their mail.
>Most of them pass DKIM, a minority aren't signe
On Fri, 19 May 2017 14:13:22 -0500 (CDT)
David B Funk wrote:
ne.
>
> My read on this is that "@ena.com" is living dangerously. They
> publish SPF records and DMARC records (with p=reject) but do NOT DKIM
> sign their mail.
Most of them pass DKIM, a minority aren't signed.
On Fri, 19 May 2017, Dianne Skoll wrote:
Hi,
Tons of list traffic keeps getting quarantined because of DMARC. For
example, a recent message from David Jones :
DMARC policy for domain ena.com suggests Rejection as
DMARC_POLICY_REJECT, but quarantined due to rule settings
$ host -t txt _dmarc.
On Fri, 19 May 2017 12:00:29 -0700
Alan Hodgson wrote:
> This is actually one of the few mailing lists that a DMARC p=reject
> domain can send anything to. Assuming they DKIM-sign their mail, of
> course.
Yep.
> I would argue that setting a DMARC p=reject policy without working
> DKIM is fundam
On Friday 19 May 2017 14:47:56 Dianne Skoll wrote:
> On Fri, 19 May 2017 20:43:39 +0200
>
> Benny Pedersen wrote:
> > some maillists break DKIM, forkus on that first, not last !
>
> Thank you for not adding any value to the conversation. The
> domain in question is not using DKIM.
>
This is a
Dianne Skoll skrev den 2017-05-19 20:47:
Thank you for not adding any value to the conversation. The
domain in question is not using DKIM.
okay, my fault then, but this is not a error if not using reject, but it
is if dmarc policy is reject
hope its clear now
David Jones skrev den 2017-05-19 20:38:
so let me open a Jira ticket to see if we need to get that setting
enabled.
Authentication-Results: linode.junc.eu; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none)
header.from=ena.com
Authentication-Results: linode.junc.eu; dkim=none; dkim-atps=neutral
where is the dk
On Fri, 19 May 2017 20:43:39 +0200
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> some maillists break DKIM, forkus on that first, not last !
Thank you for not adding any value to the conversation. The
domain in question is not using DKIM.
Regards,
Dianne.
Dianne Skoll skrev den 2017-05-19 20:30:
I'm pretty sure Mailman can do DMARC-munging. Can ezmlm do the
equivalent
of Mailman's "ALLOW_FROM_IS_LIST" feature?
some maillists break DKIM, forkus on that first, not last !
if you get this message here with DMARC fail, blame the maillist break
D
>From: Dianne Skoll
>Tons of list traffic keeps getting quarantined because of DMARC. For
>example, a recent message from David Jones :
>DMARC policy for domain ena.com suggests Rejection as
>DMARC_POLICY_REJECT, but quarantined due to rule settings
>$ host -t txt _dmarc.ena.com
>_dmarc.en
Hi,
Tons of list traffic keeps getting quarantined because of DMARC. For
example, a recent message from David Jones :
DMARC policy for domain ena.com suggests Rejection as
DMARC_POLICY_REJECT, but quarantined due to rule settings
$ host -t txt _dmarc.ena.com
_dmarc.ena.com descriptive text "v=D
21 matches
Mail list logo
