Re: possibilities for 2822

"Dick St.Peters" <stpeters(_at_)NetHeaven(_dot_)com> writes:

Read the headers of this message and you'll discover that it is signed
with DKIM.


Yes, and my system (which should also sign this reply) shows it as a
DKIM failure. It seems that, like DomainKeys before it, DKIM does not
survive all mailing lists.

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: No more xxxx=yes please, (continued) Re: No more xxxx=yes please, Frank Ellermann Re: possibilities for 2822, Frank Ellermann Re: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Dick St.Peters Re: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Stuart D. Gathman Re: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Tony Finch Re: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Stuart D. Gathman Re: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Frank Ellermann Re: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Daniel Taylor RE: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Seth Goodman RE: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Dick St.Peters Re: possibilities for 2822, Graham Murray <= Re: possibilities for 2822, Dick St.Peters RE: possibilities for 2822, Seth Goodman RE: possibilities for 2822, Dick St.Peters Re: possibilities for 2822, Frank Ellermann RE: Re: possibilities for 2822, Seth Goodman Re: possibilities for 2822, Frank Ellermann Re: Re: possibilities for 2822, Stuart D. Gathman RE: Re: possibilities for 2822, Seth Goodman Re: possibilities for 2822, Frank Ellermann Re: Re: possibilities for 2822, Stuart D. Gathman