4 ms·
Well, I don't expect SPF to pass, because it's forwarded from another address and SPF is stupid and breaks forwarding. In this case, though, the SPF says neutra
by boring_twenties 5y ago
Well, I don't expect SPF to pass, because it's forwarded from another address and SPF is stupid and breaks forwarding. In this case, though, the SPF says neutral and even hard fail doesn't cause persistent problems with other messages.
More interestingly, DKIM is "neutral" too. The message body doesn't seem to be modified by the forwarding mail server as far as I can tell... guess this might be canonical's fault after all? It's been going on for months, how am I the only one that's noticed it?
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com;
dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@canonical.com header.s=20210705 header.b=im31FPsM;
spf=neutral (google.com: XXX is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ubuntu-security-announce-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com) smtp.mailfrom=ubuntu-security-announce-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com;
dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=canonical.com
(edited to fix formatting)
- Avamander 5y agoBetter list software and forwarders allow rewriting "from" headers, it's generally better because of SPF/DKIM/DMARC to do so. You can leave the correct `Reply-To` and it should work fine for all list members using anything from this century. Right now it seems that it's `lists.ubuntu.com` and `canonical.com` in both cases, Canonical could fix SPF and/or DKIM, for the very least for their own e-mails forwarded by their own relay.