Auteur: Marjorie Roome Datum: Aan: Stefan Krusche, dng Onderwerp: Re: [DNG] no mails from dng :-( [maybe OT]
Hi Sterfan,
On Thu, 2022-07-28 at 10:12 +0100, Marjorie Roome via Dng wrote: > Hi Stefan,
>
> On Thu, 2022-07-28 at 09:35 +0200, Stefan Krusche wrote:
> > Good Day everybody,
> >
> > I haven't been receiving any messages from this list since
> > 18.7.2022 02:17 (simple-netaid for daedalus) and I have no idea
> > why.
> >
> > My mail domain is hosted/served by jpberlin.de, a company in
> > Berlin,
> > Germany. There are no messages in the spam folder on the server
> > either.
> >
> > Has something changed? What can I do to find out what happened?
> >
> Looking at the headers on recent posts (not just those from you) from
> the DNG list I'm now seeing the following:
>
> Authentication-Results: mail.dyne.org; dkim=fail reason="signature
> verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com
> header.i=@gmail.com header.b="dZ8HIihF"; dkim-atps=neutral
>
> Different servers and their spam filters have different policies as
> to what is acceptable and outright rejection is always possible: as
> these are silent then you'll never know how many spam or legitimate
> emails are getting rejected as the emails never get to your spam
> folder - on my server a majority of obvious spam never gets to my
> spam folder as it is clearly malformed (no valid reverse DNS, for
> example).
>
> I have my own postfix server with rspamd and it's not rejecting DNG
> due to the DKIM authentication but it's possible yours may do. And
> asi t's my own server I also do get to see summary information
> about all rejections.
>
> This is a recent change on the DNG list server so it probably needs
> fixing.
>
> Interestingly I'm not seeing it in Marc reply, so maybe it /has/ been
> fixed!
Spoke too soon. I'm getting it on my reply too:
Authentication-Results: mail.dyne.org; dkim=fail reason="signature
verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=meeble.net
header.i=@meeble.net header.b="K9Pp04F0"; dkim-atps=neutral
>
> Irrespective, it may be your mail server provider is a bit too
> strict.
> --
Marjorie