:: Re: [DNG] no mails from dng :-( [ma…
Pàgina inicial
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Autor: Marjorie Roome
Data:  
A: dng
Assumpte: Re: [DNG] no mails from dng :-( [maybe OT]
Hi Ludovik,

On Thu, 2022-07-28 at 11:44 +0200, Ludovic Bellière wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> Can confirm on my end too, apparently a meeble.net is now involved.
> That, or I no longer understand emails anymore.
>
>      Authentication-Results: mx201.skynet.be; spf=None
> smtp.pra=dng-bounces@???;
>          spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=dng-bounces@???; spf=None
>          smtp.helo=postmaster@???; dkim=hardfail (body hash
> did not verify
>          [final]) header.i=@meeble.net
>

No I think there is an issue with the DKIM authentication on the DNG
mail server and it's affecting not just Stefan and myself. It's not
affecting emails that are copied directly to me (which is why I thought
Marc's reply was clear).

On various list emails from the list my RSPAMD log is showing:

R_DKIM_REJECT (1) [proximus.be:s=rmail]
R_DKIM_REJECT (1) [meeble.net:s=202002]
R_DKIM_REJECT (1) [gregn.net:s=default]
R_DKIM_REJECT (1) [gmail.com:s=20210112]

the bit in brackets depends on the sender to list. I'm pretty sure that
gmail, for example, wouldn't be throwing an issue at their end.

On my mail server this authentication failure simply increments the
spam score by 1, not sufficient to put it into spam or to reject
outright. On Stefan's server, which seems to be stricter on DKIM it
leads to a rejection and him not seeing DNG emails.

NB. My first reply attempt to list used an alternative email address
(marjorie@???) at my end, which no doubt would have been
correctly rejected by the DNG server.

--
Marjorie





>
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2022, Marjorie Roome via Dng wrote:
>
> > Hi Sterfan,
> >
> > 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.
> > >