On 08/05/15 11:58, Mike Hammett via NANOG wrote:
I've seen the same over here and also considered it weird.
It looks exactly like the the DMARC senders treatment - I think there's something wiggy and everyone is being treated as a DMARC encumbered sender.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 5/7/2015 7:11 PM, Ted Cooper wrote:
On 08/05/15 11:58, Mike Hammett via NANOG wrote:
I've seen the same over here and also considered it weird.
It looks exactly like the the DMARC senders treatment - I think there's something wiggy and everyone is being treated as a DMARC encumbered sender.
I'm on a gazillion lists, and this is the only one which seems to have this particularly annoying problem. - - ferg - -- Paul Ferguson PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2 Key fingerprint: 19EC 2945 FEE8 D6C8 58A1 CE53 2896 AC75 54DC 85B2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlVMHhYACgkQKJasdVTchbIy+wEAzjAATu8LDTLVTBKPDIY/joKi 4/UXTi0ZS2cnlnp1SWQA/A4ZpErA6z05UiaQ6/J+Hyaw07tcY+PNowhIjKEJP6Fc =IFIY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 5/7/2015 7:23 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
I'm on a gazillion lists, and this is the only one which seems to have this particularly annoying problem.
And fixed! Apologies for the noise. - - ferg - -- Paul Ferguson PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2 Key fingerprint: 19EC 2945 FEE8 D6C8 58A1 CE53 2896 AC75 54DC 85B2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlVMHyAACgkQKJasdVTchbJlEAD9G6j3FfrDWMYgcniFCFu+z5cs B5UlX7U5vhzfKQYIv0kBAKi4mq5LTC5ESuN7dUKuILvNKiicu69DqMgH6wmCftuF =shQ2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (2)
-
Paul Ferguson -
Ted Cooper