A bit off-topic: problems with sending to a Gmail user
raf
mutt at raf.org
Sun Mar 13 01:31:01 UTC 2022
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 11:55:04PM +0000, Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 09:10:01AM +1100, raf wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 03:12:41PM +0100, Stefan Hagen
> > <sh+mutt at ptrace.org> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > > 550-5.7.26 This message does not have authentication
> > > > > information or fails to 550-5.7.26 pass authentication
> > > > > checks. To best protect our users from spam, the
> > > > > 550-5.7.26 message has been blocked. Please visit
> > >
> > > Authenticated in this context means, you don't have SPF / DKIM /
> > > DMARC set up.
> >
> > That's sad. I'm pretty sure that the absence of SPF/DKIM/DMARC was
> > never supposed to be interpreted as a failure of any of them.
> > Perhaps the sending domain does have SPF but it's not setup
> > correctly. It doesn't seem to (unixarea.de).
> >
> What is *really* sad is that most of the spam which gets through
> direct to this account of mine is things apparently from gmail
> addresses, pointing to ntlworld/somewhereelse.com addresses inviting
> me to login, and with DKIM apparently passing (the last couple I
> looked at were relaxed/relaxed).
>
> ĸen
> --
> The beauty of reading a page of de Selby is that it leads one
> inescapably to the conclusion that one is not, of all nincompoops,
> the greatest. -- du Garbandier
That's probably not because it's relaxed/relaxed. It's just
that when spammers use gmail to send spam, gmail happily
and correctly DKIM-signs the outgoing spam. Gmail only protects
gmails users from receiving spam. It doesn't stop them sending
spam. At least, that's what seems to be the case.
cheers,
raf
More information about the Mutt-users
mailing list