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 signed.
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.
I see that they're using Office-365. This is one of the issues I have with
0-365, it's a black box which is hard to second guess.
Sometimes they DKIM sign, some times they don't.
Sometimes they will score incoming messasge that are properly DKIM signed as
spam (for no reason other than the DKIM signature, as far as I can tell).
Bottom line; If you put yourself at the mercy of Office-365, using a DKIM policy
of "reject" is risky.
--
Dave Funk University of Iowa
<dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu> College of Engineering
319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center
Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
