Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM

• Previous message (by thread): lists and DMARC and ARC, was Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM
• Next message (by thread): Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 11/29/2017 11:03 AM, valdis.kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> Only 90% should be considered horribly broken.  Anything that makes it 
> difficult to run a simple mailing list with less that at least 2 or 3 
> 9's is unacceptable.

There have been a number of things that fall into that category, two of 
which immediately come to mind are:

  - Requiring Reverse DNS
  - SPF

I'm not commenting about the viability of these things, just that they 
are fairly well accepted and that they can trivially break mailing lists.

IMHO, DKIM and DMARC are just the recent additions to that list.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3982 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20171129/02dbc0be/attachment.bin>

• Previous message (by thread): lists and DMARC and ARC, was Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM
• Next message (by thread): Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]