nanog mailing list archives
Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM
From: Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuhnke () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 09:03:41 -0800
For those who operate public facing SMTPd that receive a large volume of incoming traffic, and accordingly, a lot of spam... How much weight do you put on an incoming message, in terms of adding additional score towards a possible value of spam, for total absence of DKIM signature?
Current thread:
- Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Eric Kuhnke (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 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 Stephen Frost (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Blake Hudson (Dec 01)