While SPF and DKIM pass, the identifiers are not aligned, therefore fail DMARC, therefore DMARC applies the reject.
http://www.dmarc.org/faq.html I operate a mailing list, what should I do? Is there special handling required to receive DMARC email from mailing lists? On 8/10/12 12:21 PM, "Peter Bowen" <[email protected]> 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
