> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 10:15:35PM -0400, Bill Cole via Postfix-users
> <postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-05-16 at 21:09:35 UTC-0400 (Wed, 17 May 2023 09:09:35 +0800)
>> Tom Reed via Postfix-users <t...@dkinbox.com>
>> is rumored to have said:
>> [...]
>> > Since the message was sent to mailing list which rewrites envelope
>> > address
>> > and adds list signature, so:
>> >
>> > 1) SPF for header From: address won't get pass due to SRS.
>> > 2) DKIM won't get pass due to list signature.
>> >
>> > So the DMARC failed totally and the message was rejected.
>> >
>> > How to improve this?
>>
>> Do not reject mail solely based on DMARC failure.
>>
>> DMARC is fragile and unreliable. It has WELL-KNOWN incompatibilities
>> with
>> traditional mailing list practices. The fact that DMARC exists does not
>> imply that it is entirely usable as deployed.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Cole
>> b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
>> (AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
>> Not Currently Available For Hire
>
> Yes, it's best to let receiving MUAs deal with DMARC
> failures, rather than mail servers (which should just
> add Authentication headers). Then individual mail users
> can decide how they personally want to deal with it.
>
Got it. Thanks for suggestions.
--
sent from https://dkinbox.com/
_______________________________________________
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
