[GH-ISSUE #113 ] Some messages aren&#39;t signed correctly #91

Author

Owner

@stevemayster commented on GitHub (Nov 18, 2015):

Hello Viktor.
Did you install dkim-exchange on edge server or you have a relay server wich faced to internet?

@stevemayster commented on GitHub (Nov 18, 2015): Hello Viktor. Did you install dkim-exchange on edge server or you have a relay server wich faced to internet?

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@VictorSvetogor commented on GitHub (Nov 19, 2015):

Hi, stevemayster

it's installed on edge server.

@VictorSvetogor commented on GitHub (Nov 19, 2015): Hi, stevemayster it's installed on edge server.

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@stevemayster commented on GitHub (Nov 19, 2015):

@VictorSvetogor so message going from edge straight to internet?
I'm asking because i have same issue but i thought it's because i have anti-spam system wich relay mail.

@stevemayster commented on GitHub (Nov 19, 2015): @VictorSvetogor so message going from edge straight to internet? I'm asking because i have same issue but i thought it's because i have anti-spam system wich relay mail.

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@VictorSvetogor commented on GitHub (Nov 19, 2015):

stevemayster,

yes, messages are going to Internet straight from the edge server.
i have installed Forefront Protection for Exchange on the edge server (it's doing antivirus protection also), but the DKIM signer is installed with lower priority (15). I guess it works with messages AFTER all other exchange transport agents.

[PS] C:\Windows\system32>Get-TransportAgent

Identity	Enabled	Priority
Vamsoft ORF SMTP Receive Agent	True	1
Vamsoft ORF Routing Agent	True	2
Connection Filtering Agent	True	3
Address Rewriting Inbound Agent	True	4
Edge Rule Agent	True	5
Content Filter Agent	False	6
Sender Id Agent	True	7
Sender Filter Agent	True	8
Recipient Filter Agent	True	9
Protocol Analysis Agent	True	10
Attachment Filtering Agent	True	11
Address Rewriting Outbound Agent	True	12
FSE Routing Agent	True	13
FSE Connection Filtering Agent	True	14
Exchange DkimSigner	True	15

@VictorSvetogor commented on GitHub (Nov 19, 2015): stevemayster, yes, messages are going to Internet straight from the edge server. i have installed Forefront Protection for Exchange on the edge server (it's doing antivirus protection also), but the DKIM signer is installed with lower priority (15). I guess it works with messages AFTER all other exchange transport agents. [PS] C:\Windows\system32>Get-TransportAgent | Identity | Enabled | Priority | | --- | --- | --- | | Vamsoft ORF SMTP Receive Agent | True | 1 | | Vamsoft ORF Routing Agent | True | 2 | | Connection Filtering Agent | True | 3 | | Address Rewriting Inbound Agent | True | 4 | | Edge Rule Agent | True | 5 | | Content Filter Agent | False | 6 | | Sender Id Agent | True | 7 | | Sender Filter Agent | True | 8 | | Recipient Filter Agent | True | 9 | | Protocol Analysis Agent | True | 10 | | Attachment Filtering Agent | True | 11 | | Address Rewriting Outbound Agent | True | 12 | | FSE Routing Agent | True | 13 | | FSE Connection Filtering Agent | True | 14 | | Exchange DkimSigner | True | 15 |

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@stevemayster commented on GitHub (Nov 19, 2015):

@VictorSvetogor Interesting. I would try to disable FSE on short time and try to send a message.
But, it's your deсision.

@stevemayster commented on GitHub (Nov 19, 2015): @VictorSvetogor Interesting. I would try to disable FSE on short time and try to send a message. But, it's your deсision.

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@VictorSvetogor commented on GitHub (Nov 20, 2015):

Hi stevemayster ,

I found that the "Attachment Filtering Agent" prevents the correct DKIM signing a message. Once i disabled it - all is ok. But this is not the right solution....

@VictorSvetogor commented on GitHub (Nov 20, 2015): Hi stevemayster , I found that the "Attachment Filtering Agent" prevents the correct DKIM signing a message. Once i disabled it - all is ok. But this is not the right solution....

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@Pro commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2015):

@VictorSvetogor does this happen to any e-mail with an attachment or is it dependent on the file type or e.g. file size?

@Pro commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2015): @VictorSvetogor does this happen to any e-mail with an attachment or is it dependent on the file type or e.g. file size?

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@VictorSvetogor commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2015):

@Pro

I found that this happens if I send a message with an attachment that has non- latin name of the file.

@VictorSvetogor commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2015): @Pro I found that this happens if I send a message with an attachment that has non- latin name of the file.

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@Pro commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2015):

I'll try to reproduce this problem on my test server so I can find the part of the code which is causing the problem. This will take some days until I have time. If someone else has time to narrow the problem down I'm happy for any help 👍

@Pro commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2015): I'll try to reproduce this problem on my test server so I can find the part of the code which is causing the problem. This will take some days until I have time. If someone else has time to narrow the problem down I'm happy for any help :+1:

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@stevemayster commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2015):

@Pro I have same problem too,but my file doesn't have non-latin name of the file.
I think it's happen because my anti-spam filter system wich act as relay server broke signature,but i don't sure because it's happen not with all messages with attachment. How can i help you?

@stevemayster commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2015): @Pro I have same problem too,but my file doesn't have non-latin name of the file. I think it's happen because my anti-spam filter system wich act as relay server broke signature,but i don't sure because it's happen not with all messages with attachment. How can i help you?

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@MikeLabatt commented on GitHub (Nov 25, 2015):

I have a similar "body hash did not verify" issue (tested with Gmail inbox) when sending messages with subject only, no message body. Resending the same message with body, the signature works fine. This is DKIM Signer 2.1.8 on edge Exchange 2007 server going straight to the internet.

Agents are:

Identity Enabled Priority

Connection Filtering Agent True 1
Address Rewriting Inbound Agent True 2
Edge Rule Agent True 3
Content Filter Agent True 4
Sender Id Agent True 5
Sender Filter Agent True 6
Recipient Filter Agent True 7
Protocol Analysis Agent True 8
Attachment Filtering Agent True 9
Address Rewriting Outbound Agent True 10
Exchange DkimSigner True 11

Tried different priorities, like 3 vs. 11, with same result: with body it signs OK, without body it fails.

dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=mail; d=example.com; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=Date:From:Message-ID:Subject:To; bh=frcCV1k9oG9oKj3dpUqdJg1PxRT2RSN/XKdLCPjaYaY=; b=FDo7CfwA4jj1mQtEb7bR9K+kAvnnD4BTnff5iiIFxEg5ox9ofRNINoO25yAqdFsNu6euUKC5RqyPjAqJhfQcFNGAxG7qDG7TQvvtbabTDv7ayTVOxpjM4eqYEraODKvlre+Cn06aBEL3JcN2ZhEhl9rgczo+PN84WpY6jQA51dA=;

Also, what looks like a minor bugglet: when the configuration tool opens, it does not re-select the radio button associated to RsaSha256.

@MikeLabatt commented on GitHub (Nov 25, 2015): I have a similar "body hash did not verify" issue (tested with Gmail inbox) when sending messages with subject only, no message body. Resending the same message with body, the signature works fine. This is DKIM Signer 2.1.8 on edge Exchange 2007 server going straight to the internet. Agents are: Identity Enabled Priority --- Connection Filtering Agent True 1 Address Rewriting Inbound Agent True 2 Edge Rule Agent True 3 Content Filter Agent True 4 Sender Id Agent True 5 Sender Filter Agent True 6 Recipient Filter Agent True 7 Protocol Analysis Agent True 8 Attachment Filtering Agent True 9 Address Rewriting Outbound Agent True 10 Exchange DkimSigner True 11 Tried different priorities, like 3 vs. 11, with same result: with body it signs OK, without body it fails. dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=mail; d=example.com; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=Date:From:Message-ID:Subject:To; bh=frcCV1k9oG9oKj3dpUqdJg1PxRT2RSN/XKdLCPjaYaY=; b=FDo7CfwA4jj1mQtEb7bR9K+kAvnnD4BTnff5iiIFxEg5ox9ofRNINoO25yAqdFsNu6euUKC5RqyPjAqJhfQcFNGAxG7qDG7TQvvtbabTDv7ayTVOxpjM4eqYEraODKvlre+Cn06aBEL3JcN2ZhEhl9rgczo+PN84WpY6jQA51dA=; Also, what looks like a minor bugglet: when the configuration tool opens, it does not re-select the radio button associated to <SigningAlgorithm>RsaSha256</SigningAlgorithm>.

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@AlexLaroche commented on GitHub (Nov 25, 2015):

What canonicalization to do you use?
What are the value of field in your message?
content-Type and content-transfer-encoding

@AlexLaroche commented on GitHub (Nov 25, 2015): What canonicalization to do you use? What are the value of field in your message? content-Type and content-transfer-encoding

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@MikeLabatt commented on GitHub (Nov 26, 2015):

Canonicalization of header/body: relaxed/relaxed
Key size: 1024
Hash: SHA-256
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If the body is empty, Gmail headers indicate "body hash did not verify".
If the body contains text, GMail indicates dkim=pass. Content-Type and Content-Transfer-Encoding are the same.

The above two variations were also retried with an empty subject, with the same result (empty message failed body hash, empty subject with body passed).

Yahoo mail gives the same results: email without body gives "dkim=permerror (bad sig)", while email with body results in "dkim=pass (ok)".

@MikeLabatt commented on GitHub (Nov 26, 2015): Canonicalization of header/body: relaxed/relaxed Key size: 1024 Hash: SHA-256 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If the body is empty, Gmail headers indicate "body hash did not verify". If the body contains text, GMail indicates dkim=pass. Content-Type and Content-Transfer-Encoding are the same. The above two variations were also retried with an empty subject, with the same result (empty message failed body hash, empty subject with body passed). Yahoo mail gives the same results: email without body gives "dkim=permerror (bad sig)", while email with body results in "dkim=pass (ok)".

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@Pro commented on GitHub (Nov 26, 2015):

@MikeLabatt the small bug with the radio button is now fixed, see: github.com/Pro/dkim-exchange@6cd52a755d (thanks @AlexLaroche)

Regarding the other problem of invalid signature: I'll try to find some time in the weekend to debug the problem.

@Pro commented on GitHub (Nov 26, 2015): @MikeLabatt the small bug with the radio button is now fixed, see: https://github.com/Pro/dkim-exchange/commit/6cd52a755d3f2190f7ef44f16679448841852dd3 (thanks @AlexLaroche) Regarding the other problem of invalid signature: I'll try to find some time in the weekend to debug the problem.

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@VictorSvetogor commented on GitHub (Nov 27, 2015):

@Pro ,

i've sent the email to you.

@VictorSvetogor commented on GitHub (Nov 27, 2015): @Pro , i've sent the email to you.

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@MikeLabatt commented on GitHub (Nov 27, 2015):

@Pro: sent you two emails around 20:03 UTC (one with body, one without body, as per issue)

@MikeLabatt commented on GitHub (Nov 27, 2015): @Pro: sent you two emails around 20:03 UTC (one with body, one without body, as per issue)

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@MikeLabatt commented on GitHub (Nov 28, 2015):

@Pro: Just sent you another mail, concerning a similar body hash failure, but this time with emails that have an attachment (and a message body).

@MikeLabatt commented on GitHub (Nov 28, 2015): @Pro: Just sent you another mail, concerning a similar body hash failure, but this time with emails that have an attachment (and a message body).

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@Pro commented on GitHub (Nov 29, 2015):

@MikeLabatt, @VictorSvetogor I looked at your emails and also tried to reproduce the error, but with no success. Can you please send first a mail where the DKIM signature should be OK to the E-Mail address indicated below. And then each mail which failed signing separately to this e-mail address:
check-auth-git=s.profanter.me@verifier.port25.com

Using this E-mail address I get the full content of the mail and all the required info (see https://www.port25.com/support/authentication-center/email-verification/ for more info).

@Pro commented on GitHub (Nov 29, 2015): @MikeLabatt, @VictorSvetogor I looked at your emails and also tried to reproduce the error, but with no success. Can you please send first a mail where the DKIM signature should be OK to the E-Mail address indicated below. And then each mail which failed signing separately to this e-mail address: `check-auth-git=s.profanter.me@verifier.port25.com` Using this E-mail address I get the full content of the mail and all the required info (see https://www.port25.com/support/authentication-center/email-verification/ for more info).

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@MikeLabatt commented on GitHub (Dec 2, 2015):

@Pro: done (all three emails resent in the same order).

@MikeLabatt commented on GitHub (Dec 2, 2015): @Pro: done (all three emails resent in the same order).

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@avoidik commented on GitHub (Dec 11, 2015):

Same problem with Exchange 2010 UR11 no matter of canonicalization algorithms. Body contains cyrillic symbols without attachments. If i remove my email signature dkim passed. Is this encoding problem?

Test email


test

-- 
С уважением, Вася Пупкин
Старший помощник главного дворника
8(495)555-05-05

Result from port25 with specified signature

----------------------------------------------------------
DKIM check details:
----------------------------------------------------------
Result:         fail (wrong body hash: expected jyd/c+ILEe9+8WW6blVnTI3WYj4=)
ID(s) verified: 
Canonicalized Headers:
    Date:'20'Fri,'20'11'20'Dec'20'2015'20'11:23:28'20'+0300'0D''0A'
    From:'20'removed@private.data'0D''0A'
    '09'<removed@private.data>'0D''0A'
    Message-ID:'20'<removed@private.data>'0D''0A'
    Subject:'20'test'0D''0A'
    To:'20'<check-auth2@verifier.port25.com>'0D''0A'
    DKIM-Signature:'20'v=1;'20'a=rsa-sha1;'20's=selector_removed;'20'd=domain_removed;'20'c=simple/simple;'20'q=dns/txt;'20'h=Date'20':'20'From'20':'20'Message-ID'20':'20'Subject'20':'20'To;'20'bh=88/Es1HWcf3uWK1WWaakly0DiB0=;'20'b=;

Canonicalized Body:
    test'0D''0A'
    '0D''0A'
    --'20''0D''0A'
    'D0''A1''20''D1''83''D0''B2''D0''B0''D0''B6''D0''B5''D0''BD''D0''B8''D0''B5''D0''BC','20''D0''92''D0''B0''D1''81''D1''8F''20''D0''9F''D1''83''D0''BF''D0''BA''D0''B8''D0''BD''0D''0A'
    'D0''A1''D1''82''D0''B0''D1''80''D1''88''D0''B8''D0''B9''20''D0''BF''D0''BE''D0''BC''D0''BE''D1''89''D0''BD''D0''B8''D0''BA''20''D0''B3''D0''BB''D0''B0''D0''B2''D0''BD''D0''BE''D0''B3''D0''BE''20''D0''B4''D0''B2''D0''BE''D1''80''D0''BD''D0''B8''D0''BA''D0''B0''0D''0A'
    8(495)555-05-05'0D''0A'

Result from port25 without specified signature

----------------------------------------------------------
DKIM check details:
----------------------------------------------------------
Result:         pass (matches From: removed@private.data)
ID(s) verified: header.d=domain_removed
Canonicalized Headers:
    Date:'20'Fri,'20'11'20'Dec'20'2015'20'11:27:31'20'+0300'0D''0A'
    From:'20'removed@private.data'0D''0A'
    '09'<removed@private.data>'0D''0A'
    Message-ID:'20'<removed@private.data>'0D''0A'
    Subject:'20'test'0D''0A'
    To:'20'<check-auth2@verifier.port25.com>'0D''0A'
    DKIM-Signature:'20'v=1;'20'a=rsa-sha1;'20's=selector_removed;'20'd=domain_removed;'20'c=simple/simple;'20'q=dns/txt;'20'h=Date'20':'20'From'20':'20'Message-ID'20':'20'Subject'20':'20'To;'20'bh=/edzoYuyn17WXm8KeqcX/R+khdQ=;'20'b=;

Canonicalized Body:
    test'0D''0A'

If we check email inside google email, the difference in one line.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <- passed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <- not passed

@avoidik commented on GitHub (Dec 11, 2015): Same problem with Exchange 2010 UR11 no matter of canonicalization algorithms. Body contains cyrillic symbols without attachments. If i remove my email signature dkim passed. Is this encoding problem? Test email ``` test -- С уважением, Вася Пупкин Старший помощник главного дворника 8(495)555-05-05 ``` Result from port25 with specified signature ``` ---------------------------------------------------------- DKIM check details: ---------------------------------------------------------- Result: fail (wrong body hash: expected jyd/c+ILEe9+8WW6blVnTI3WYj4=) ID(s) verified: Canonicalized Headers: Date:'20'Fri,'20'11'20'Dec'20'2015'20'11:23:28'20'+0300'0D''0A' From:'20'removed@private.data'0D''0A' '09'<removed@private.data>'0D''0A' Message-ID:'20'<removed@private.data>'0D''0A' Subject:'20'test'0D''0A' To:'20'<check-auth2@verifier.port25.com>'0D''0A' DKIM-Signature:'20'v=1;'20'a=rsa-sha1;'20's=selector_removed;'20'd=domain_removed;'20'c=simple/simple;'20'q=dns/txt;'20'h=Date'20':'20'From'20':'20'Message-ID'20':'20'Subject'20':'20'To;'20'bh=88/Es1HWcf3uWK1WWaakly0DiB0=;'20'b=; Canonicalized Body: test'0D''0A' '0D''0A' --'20''0D''0A' 'D0''A1''20''D1''83''D0''B2''D0''B0''D0''B6''D0''B5''D0''BD''D0''B8''D0''B5''D0''BC','20''D0''92''D0''B0''D1''81''D1''8F''20''D0''9F''D1''83''D0''BF''D0''BA''D0''B8''D0''BD''0D''0A' 'D0''A1''D1''82''D0''B0''D1''80''D1''88''D0''B8''D0''B9''20''D0''BF''D0''BE''D0''BC''D0''BE''D1''89''D0''BD''D0''B8''D0''BA''20''D0''B3''D0''BB''D0''B0''D0''B2''D0''BD''D0''BE''D0''B3''D0''BE''20''D0''B4''D0''B2''D0''BE''D1''80''D0''BD''D0''B8''D0''BA''D0''B0''0D''0A' 8(495)555-05-05'0D''0A' ``` Result from port25 without specified signature ``` ---------------------------------------------------------- DKIM check details: ---------------------------------------------------------- Result: pass (matches From: removed@private.data) ID(s) verified: header.d=domain_removed Canonicalized Headers: Date:'20'Fri,'20'11'20'Dec'20'2015'20'11:27:31'20'+0300'0D''0A' From:'20'removed@private.data'0D''0A' '09'<removed@private.data>'0D''0A' Message-ID:'20'<removed@private.data>'0D''0A' Subject:'20'test'0D''0A' To:'20'<check-auth2@verifier.port25.com>'0D''0A' DKIM-Signature:'20'v=1;'20'a=rsa-sha1;'20's=selector_removed;'20'd=domain_removed;'20'c=simple/simple;'20'q=dns/txt;'20'h=Date'20':'20'From'20':'20'Message-ID'20':'20'Subject'20':'20'To;'20'bh=/edzoYuyn17WXm8KeqcX/R+khdQ=;'20'b=; Canonicalized Body: test'0D''0A' ``` If we check email inside google email, the difference in one line. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <- passed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <- not passed

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@avoidik commented on GitHub (Dec 11, 2015):

And the answer is this:
http://stbuehler.de/blog/article/2011/05/19/dkim_fails_at_content-transfer-encoding.html

It turns out the DKIM rfc says you SHOULD always convert your messages to 7bit / quoted-printable encodings…

@avoidik commented on GitHub (Dec 11, 2015): And the answer is this: http://stbuehler.de/blog/article/2011/05/19/dkim_fails_at_content-transfer-encoding.html ``` It turns out the DKIM rfc says you SHOULD always convert your messages to 7bit / quoted-printable encodings… ```

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@Pro commented on GitHub (Dec 11, 2015):

@avoidik Thanks for your further analysis. It seems that the problem is related to #86
I'll try to debug the problem next sunday and hopefully come up with a solution

@Pro commented on GitHub (Dec 11, 2015): @avoidik Thanks for your further analysis. It seems that the problem is related to #86 I'll try to debug the problem next sunday and hopefully come up with a solution

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@Pro commented on GitHub (Dec 14, 2015):

I've found MimeKit (https://github.com/jstedfast/MimeKit) which also provides a better implementation for DKIM signing. We will integrate it into this agent and release it as version 3.0.0 (see https://github.com/Pro/dkim-exchange/tree/mime_kit). This will probably reduce the number of problems regarding wrongly signed mails. It will take some days, hopefully it is ready in January.

@Pro commented on GitHub (Dec 14, 2015): I've found MimeKit (https://github.com/jstedfast/MimeKit) which also provides a better implementation for DKIM signing. We will integrate it into this agent and release it as version 3.0.0 (see https://github.com/Pro/dkim-exchange/tree/mime_kit). This will probably reduce the number of problems regarding wrongly signed mails. It will take some days, hopefully it is ready in January.

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@Pro commented on GitHub (Jan 1, 2016):

v3.0.0 beta is now released. This should fix the 8bit issue:
https://github.com/Pro/dkim-exchange/releases/tag/v3.0.0-beta

@Pro commented on GitHub (Jan 1, 2016): v3.0.0 beta is now released. This should fix the 8bit issue: https://github.com/Pro/dkim-exchange/releases/tag/v3.0.0-beta

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@VictorSvetogor commented on GitHub (Feb 22, 2016):

i've installed 3.0.1, but it didn't help

@VictorSvetogor commented on GitHub (Feb 22, 2016): i've installed 3.0.1, but it didn't help

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@Pro commented on GitHub (Feb 22, 2016):

Ok, then maybe this is fixed in the new Mime Kit version 1.2.21 (https://github.com/jstedfast/MimeKit/blob/master/ReleaseNotes.md)
It mentiones 'Fixed MimeMessage.DkimSign() to not enforce 7bit encoding of the body. (issue #224)'

This version will be included in the next dkim signer release.

@Pro commented on GitHub (Feb 22, 2016): Ok, then maybe this is fixed in the new Mime Kit version 1.2.21 (https://github.com/jstedfast/MimeKit/blob/master/ReleaseNotes.md) It mentiones 'Fixed MimeMessage.DkimSign() to not enforce 7bit encoding of the body. (issue #224)' This version will be included in the next dkim signer release.

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@Pro commented on GitHub (Feb 27, 2016):

Please check the new version:
https://github.com/Pro/dkim-exchange/releases/tag/v3.0.2.
If there's still an issue with 8-bit signing, please open an issue on the MimeKit repo: https://github.com/jstedfast/MimeKit/issues and link it here.

@Pro commented on GitHub (Feb 27, 2016): Please check the new version: https://github.com/Pro/dkim-exchange/releases/tag/v3.0.2. If there's still an issue with 8-bit signing, please open an issue on the MimeKit repo: https://github.com/jstedfast/MimeKit/issues and link it here.

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@wish01 commented on GitHub (Feb 17, 2017):

Hello, I installed version 3.0.8 and mimekit 1.2.21. Error signed letters with the name in Russian investments, dkim Error signature continues. Message gmail: DKIM: NEUTRAL, domain null

@wish01 commented on GitHub (Feb 17, 2017): Hello, I installed version 3.0.8 and mimekit 1.2.21. Error signed letters with the name in Russian investments, dkim Error signature continues. Message gmail: DKIM: NEUTRAL, domain null

kerem commented

Author

Owner

@avoidik commented on GitHub (Feb 17, 2017):

Did you configured SPF/TXT records for your MX-domain?

17 февр. 2017 г. 5:55 пользователь "wish01" notifications@github.com
написал:

Hello, I installed version 3.0.8 and mimekit 1.2.21. Error signed letters
with the name in Russian investments, dkim Error signature continues.
Message gmail: DKIM: NEUTRAL, domain null

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/Pro/dkim-exchange/issues/113#issuecomment-280543803,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGI0XEC3YpRz64ppBmeOrFv4H7-ntqQuks5rdRoogaJpZM4GknAO
.

@avoidik commented on GitHub (Feb 17, 2017): Did you configured SPF/TXT records for your MX-domain? 17 февр. 2017 г. 5:55 пользователь "wish01" <notifications@github.com> написал: > Hello, I installed version 3.0.8 and mimekit 1.2.21. Error signed letters > with the name in Russian investments, dkim Error signature continues. > Message gmail: DKIM: NEUTRAL, domain null > > — > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/Pro/dkim-exchange/issues/113#issuecomment-280543803>, > or mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGI0XEC3YpRz64ppBmeOrFv4H7-ntqQuks5rdRoogaJpZM4GknAO> > . >

kerem commented