On Sat, 17 May 2025, Martina Ferrari wrote:n
> Do we need to all change/downgrade our email setups, or is there a
> plan to address this at some point?
Addressing it requires having the BTS resend all messages from its own
addresses since the BTS has to rewrite parts of the mail in order to
functi
On May 17, Andrea Pappacoda wrote:
Isn't any domain potentially subject to spoofing and phishing? One
Potentially, obviously yes.
But experience shows that it is an actual problem only for a tiny number
of domains.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat May 17, 2025 at 4:17 PM CEST, Marco d'Itri wrote:
A restrictive DMARC policy should be used if a domain is subject to
spoofing (e.g. because it is a phishing target). But p=none is
a totally valid configuration.
Isn't any domain potentially subject to spoofing and phishing? One
shouldn
On May 17, Martina Ferrari wrote:
I have recently updated much of my email server setup, including DKIM
signing and validation, and publishing DMARC records. Since I changed
the DMARC policy away from p=none (as that it is supposed to be only
for testing purposes),
This is not really correct.
Hi,
I have recently updated much of my email server setup, including DKIM
signing and validation, and publishing DMARC records. Since I changed
the DMARC policy away from p=none (as that it is supposed to be only for
testing purposes), I started getting reports each time I send an email
to th
5 matches
Mail list logo
