nanog mailing list archives
Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM
From: Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:35:43 -0700
On 11/29/2017 02:13 PM, John Levine wrote:
A mailing list sending with bad rDNS or bad SPF is a pretty cruddy mailing list.
s/mailing list sending/sending server/ Agreed.
Normal lists put their own bounce address in the envelope so they can handle the bounces, so their own SPF applies.
Yep. V.E.R.P. is a very powerful thing. (B.A.T.V. is an interesting alternative, but I never messed with it.)
No idea why you think rDNS for a list's MTA is any harder than anyone else's MTA.
I don't.I'm saying that I've heard arguments over the last 15 years from people that (FC)rDNS and SPF (independently) are things that will break some portion of email. - I believe that these are simply technologies that the email industry has adopted and now considers to be Best Practice, if not actual requirements that MUST be done.
IMHO, Mailing List Managers are simply a different form of MUA that utilizes the same email infrastructure (MTAs.) Thus, MLMs are subject tot he same requirements as "individual email" (as referred to earlier.)
-- Grant. . . . unix || dieP.S. I'm strongly of the opinion that if a MLM alters the message in ANY capacity, that it is actually generating a new message. Thus the MLM is the new author. It's just using content strongly based on emails that came into it. - But that's a different discussion that lasted days on the mailman mailing list.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Current thread:
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM, (continued)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Blake Hudson (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Grant Taylor via NANOG (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM William Herrin (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Stephen Frost (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM William Herrin (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Ken O'Driscoll (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Michael Thomas (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM valdis . kletnieks (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Grant Taylor via NANOG (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM John Levine (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Grant Taylor via NANOG (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM John Levine (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM William Herrin (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Grant Taylor via NANOG (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM John Levine (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Grant Taylor via NANOG (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM John Levine (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Grant Taylor via NANOG (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM John R. Levine (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Grant Taylor via NANOG (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Stephen Frost (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Blake Hudson (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Bjørn Mork (Dec 01)