Thanks Mike It's not my domain, I just noticed it in my spam.. Ah I just found the XML Schema for reports, was about to ask if there was a specific list then found PolicyOverrideType
It's starting to make more sense now. Is it purely up to the receiver to set the PolicyOverrideType based on local policy? Andy On 4 April 2013 12:25, Mike Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > Andy, > > I you can find the record for this message in your aggregate report, check > for the presence of a <reason><type> tag. If that is present and the type > is either "forwarded" or "mailing_list" it will tell you that the receiver > overrode the reject policy for that reason. It's not necessarily specific > to Google, any receiver can do it and be within the bounds of the DMARC > spec. > > Mike > > Mike Jones > Director, Product Management & Receiver Services > Agari > [email protected] <[email protected]> > Skype: jnzmike1 > 703-728-3978 (cell) > > On Apr 3, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Andy Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > > The pct tag is set to 100. > I would speculate it *is* directly related to DMARC as the message shown > in Gmail is "Our systems couldn't verify that this message was really sent > by junc.eu" > > Hopefully someone from Google can chime in here > > > On 4 April 2013 11:40, Murray Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Gmail is on this list so I'll let them answer for themselves. Were I >> to speculate, there could be any of several reasons in addition to your two >> ideas, including: >> >> It passed DMARC but their content classifiers still called it spam, and >> they acted accordingly. >> >> You have a "pct" tag, DMARC failed, and the "upgrade" process described >> in Section 7.1 has been applied. >> >> -MSK >> >> From: Andy Wilson <[email protected]> >> Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 11:29:59 +1300 >> To: <[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]> 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]> >>> Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:59:22 +1300 >>> To: <[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] designates 208.69.40.157 as >>> permitted sender) [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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=aZ0xRzXh0AB20HBCmRph%2Bg%3D%3D%0A&m=lyGfJZF%2BEoATD%2Bwy53JHOt32pXY1CEylMdgz%2F0zo1G8%3D%0A&s=22f5ff481443187908d3f3a54426ceb21fa52fd7dbfda0472b3946d59eddba2e>NOTE: >>> Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well >>> terms >>> (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=aZ0xRzXh0AB20HBCmRph%2Bg%3D%3D%0A&m=lyGfJZF%2BEoATD%2Bwy53JHOt32pXY1CEylMdgz%2F0zo1G8%3D%0A&s=c7accfa020b16c423d31a8446ee9689c10fcd8bd9aa3ab4a30872274e60b16b9>) >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dmarc-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=aZ0xRzXh0AB20HBCmRph%2Bg%3D%3D%0A&m=lyGfJZF%2BEoATD%2Bwy53JHOt32pXY1CEylMdgz%2F0zo1G8%3D%0A&s=22f5ff481443187908d3f3a54426ceb21fa52fd7dbfda0472b3946d59eddba2e> >>> >>> NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well >>> terms >>> (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=aZ0xRzXh0AB20HBCmRph%2Bg%3D%3D%0A&m=lyGfJZF%2BEoATD%2Bwy53JHOt32pXY1CEylMdgz%2F0zo1G8%3D%0A&s=c7accfa020b16c423d31a8446ee9689c10fcd8bd9aa3ab4a30872274e60b16b9> >>> ) >>> >>> _______________________________________________ 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) >> >> > > > -- > 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) > > > -- 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)
