But there wouldn't be identity alignment, so it would fail DMARC even though SPF and DKIM might pass.
Scott K On Friday, August 10, 2012 12:21:10 PM Peter Bowen wrote: > This list is rather special, as it applies a dkim signature as part of > the operation of relaying to the subscribers. So both SPF and DKIM > passed on Franck's messages. > > amazon.com seems to be configured similarly to linkedin.com, but only > with quarantine, and posts I've seen on other lists suggest that there > are problems > (http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-08/msg00278.html) Maybe > it is because because other list servers are not signing their mail? Or > perhaps the problem is that they do not strip the DKIM > signature header yet modify the subject and body? > > Thanks, > Peter > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: > > And yet you seem to want people on this list to get your mail, so I'm > > confused? > > > > Scott K > > > > On Friday, August 10, 2012 05:29:57 PM Franck Martin wrote: > >> There is no documented consensus, and I would not document it that way > >> anyhow. > >> > >> I would prefer to say that Mailing lists, forwarders, third parties, > >> which > >> are more likely to be used by individuals more often than not break SPF > >> and DKIM alignment, therefore DMARC. While DMARC is well suited for > >> protecting transactional emails, one should be careful before enabling > >> DMARC for domains used by individuals. > >> > >> As a side note, I have enabled DMARC for linkedin.com and I'm not > >> suffering much from these problems. On the contrary it is helping. We did > >> not want to split our domain linkedin.com to linkedin-inc.com or some > >> other things, because of the "brand" it represents for our sales people. > >> I > >> know at least another party in this group that has same feeling re > >> "brand" > >> of the main domain. > >> > >> On 8/10/12 1:31 AM, "Roland Turner" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >All, > >> > > >> >I note that a consensus of sorts has formed in some places around the > >> >non-use of quarantine and reject policies on domains which are used for > >> >individual correspondence because of the loss of legitimate email that > >> >will tend to result, however I've not been able to locate published text > >> >on this (e.g. it's not mentioned in the draft, nor in the dmarc.org > >> >FAQ). > >> > > >> >Has this (or its contrary...) been documented as a consensus position > >> >somewhere that I've missed? > >> > > >> >- Roland > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> dmarc-discuss mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss > >> > >> NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well > >> terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dmarc-discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss > > > > NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well > > terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html) _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
