[ietf-dkim] list vs contributor signatures, was Wrong Discussion
mike at mtcc.com
Thu Apr 29 11:12:44 PDT 2010
On 04/29/2010 10:42 AM, Powers, Jot wrote:
> On 4/29/10 10:34 AM, "Michael Thomas"<mike at mtcc.com> scribbled:
>> On 04/29/2010 10:23 AM, Al Iverson wrote:
>>> As John Levine mentioned previously, your own posts to this list fail
>>> authentication and end up in many of our spam folders because of
>>> Paypal's SPF policy. I'm not against strong authentication policies --
>>> but I'm wondering how you personally expect to be able to post to
>>> mailing lists without acceptance of this proposal? The status quo
>>> interferes with your ability currently, and broader adoption of
>>> authentication on the receiving side will only make it worse.
>> The solution to a misconfigured SPF/ADSP record is for every receiver to
>> patch it up post-hoc? That makes absolutely no sense.
> I must have missed it. What exactly does PayPal have misconfigured?
> Off-list is fine.
I'm not sure that paypal.com actually has anything wrong -- i'm not
a spf expert, but it seems that you're set to ~all which isn't a very
restrictive policy iirc. I'm only responding to Al's assertion that your
SPF record is causing mail to be filtered as spam. If I had to guess,
I'd say it's the spam filter's problem, not yours.
With respect to DKIM, anybody who filters based on broken signatures without
any (or little) other input pretty much deserves the false positive rate they're
More information about the ietf-dkim