nanog mailing list archives
Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM
From: "John Levine" <johnl () iecc com>
Date: 29 Nov 2017 22:50:16 -0000
In article <3677d101-3874-b8e4-87b3-37e4dd870325 () tnetconsulting net> you write:
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.)
VERP helps identify the bouncing party, but list bounce handling works fine without it. What matters is that it's the list's address in the envelope, not the message author. BATV works OK (I should know, I invented it) but it has its false positives.
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.
Broken rDNS is just broken, since there's approximately no reason ever to send from a host that doesn't know its own name. Broken SPF may or may not be an issue since there are lots of legit ways to send mail that SPF can't describe. R's, John
P.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.
It's an interesting theological argument but it makes little practical difference.
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 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 Bjørn Mork (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Rich Kulawiec (Dec 01)