try 2 and read the aggregate report, the answer is there ;) I suspect delivering to the spam folder instead of the inbox here as nothing to do with DMARC.
From: Andy Wilson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, April 3, 2013 3:29 PM To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] Gmail Authentication-Results header What does disposition mean in this case? It also raises the question, why did Gmail put the email in spam instead of rejecting it as the dmarc policy specifes? I can think of 2 reasonable things: 1: Google is still not confident senders are implementing dmarc correctly and as a precaution quarantining messages (instead of rejecting them) 2: Gmail is smart enough to take into account the presence of the List-Id header and/or other headers and applying special case processing for mailing lists. Any thoughts? On 4 Apr 2013 11:12, "Murray Kucherawy" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I would guess it means "disposition", but since it's in a comment, it's probably not supposed to mean anything to parsers. From: Andy Wilson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:59:22 +1300 To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [dmarc-discuss] Gmail Authentication-Results header Has anyone else noticed Google are now inserting a dmarc result into their AR? I just noticed this from an email Benny sent (which ended up in spam due to p=reject) Authentication-Results: mx.google.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://mx.google.com&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=aZ0xRzXh0AB20HBCmRph%2Bg%3D%3D%0A&m=wCj72IWTuytJYJCR9EhcBAz4D83F0Y%2Fb55%2F9T6NNGAM%3D%0A&s=8dd0d171b958943cb70fd63d18f4faf8d22259ab714acdb53ba3bd7f59a092c3>; spf=pass (google.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://google.com&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=aZ0xRzXh0AB20HBCmRph%2Bg%3D%3D%0A&m=wCj72IWTuytJYJCR9EhcBAz4D83F0Y%2Fb55%2F9T6NNGAM%3D%0A&s=e6367b0e8944e8e790e4205b6be8c3f708102eb399ec260365651146b090b106>: domain of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> designates 208.69.40.157<tel:208.69.40.157> as permitted sender) [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; dkim=pass [email protected]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://dmarc.org&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=aZ0xRzXh0AB20HBCmRph%2Bg%3D%3D%0A&m=wCj72IWTuytJYJCR9EhcBAz4D83F0Y%2Fb55%2F9T6NNGAM%3D%0A&s=1e51581d056ea1196431d5698d0d7ff17a30eec738c8204246e240bfb126a7a7>; dmarc=fail (p=REJECT dis=none) d=junc.eu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://junc.eu&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=aZ0xRzXh0AB20HBCmRph%2Bg%3D%3D%0A&m=wCj72IWTuytJYJCR9EhcBAz4D83F0Y%2Fb55%2F9T6NNGAM%3D%0A&s=82a111529a2ef46ace452d4c6aa0626cafb0c87ae011b125fb67383d080a4747> Can anyone from Google comment on the use of this header, not quite sure what dis=none means -- Regards Andy
_______________________________________________ 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)
