Re: BUG #18822: mailing lists reject mails due to DKIM-signature
От | Stefan Kaltenbrunner |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #18822: mailing lists reject mails due to DKIM-signature |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5a97e020-1008-4c2d-bf29-3ba590296d6a@kaltenbrunner.cc обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #18822: mailing lists reject mails due to DKIM-signature (Matthias Apitz <gurucubano@googlemail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #18822: mailing lists reject mails due to DKIM-signature
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On 24.02.25 10:45, Matthias Apitz wrote: > > Hi Stefan, > > > > > grep ^DKIM mutt.mail > > DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org <http:// > smtp1.osuosl.org> <http:// > > smtp1.osuosl.org <http://smtp1.osuosl.org>> C3A51819CC > > DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org <http:// > smtp3.osuosl.org> <http:// > > smtp3.osuosl.org <http://smtp3.osuosl.org>> 5EB3A605E8 > > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; > > > not sure what you are try to tell us here - what is relevant is whether > the signature (if there is one) still validates and whether those lists > actually maintain List-* headers. > > > The mail I sent to the mutt-users mailing list contains what my provider > adds as DKIM-signature: > [...headers showing mailman forcibly removing dkim signatures...] > ... > > Why postgresql.org <http://postgresql.org> can not do the same? sorry to be blunt but that behaviour is completely broken in a modern mail world (though it might have worked like 10+ years ago) - it looks like that list is simply removing dkim signatures, per the standard that means the signature is invalid (because an invalid signature is treated the same as an unsigned). Unsigned mails(these days SPF, DKIM and DMARFC are not optional any more) are basically undeliverable at scale to all large mail providers other than if you are a super low volume sender - so that is a complete non-starter for us. Also note that that particular mailinglist setup seems to be unsuitable for large volumen lists to say google anyway because afaiks it does not support RFC8058 which is a google requirement for large senders. It might work for (no offense intended) for a super tiny mailinglist like mutt-users@ with a 2 figure number of mails per month (and probaly a very small amount of subscribers) but not for us where we have easily 100x if not more that volume. Stefan
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: