https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7416
--- Comment #13 from RW <rwmailli...@googlemail.com> --- (In reply to Dave Jones from comment #12) > I am not going to go down to your level and argue this issue any further. A > patch has already been made so I shouldn't even be responding to your > comments at all but since you insulted my competence You have demonstrated on multiple occasions that you do not understand the issues. > https://blog.returnpath.com/why-passing-and-aligning-both-spf-and-dkim-is- > key-to-email-deliverability/ We've already been through this that article is simply arguing in favour of redundancy, both spf and dkim are unreliable. > SRS would allow the forwarding MTA to add DKIM signing for their new > envelope-from to allow both SPF and DKIM alignment for perfect DMARC pass. This wouldn't help. The intermediate server wouldn't be able sign using a domain that aligns with the from header. Neither would the rewritten envelope align with the from header for spf. The email would pass DMARC only of there was a valid pre-existing dkim header and the hashes haven't changed. It makes no difference to the DMARC result. > I have done a lot of reading and research on DMARC as well as seen many > DMARC reports for many domains. I understand how it works. What you wrote about about SRS above demonstrates clearly that you don't. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
