Hi Al, I am an engineer on Gmail team and I can confirm, that DMARC and spam classification are running as different processes. If we decided that we apply policy="none", we stop with DMARC flow. I agree that Gmail sometimes is classifying good messages as spam. Please mark them as non-spam in your Gmail UI and we will learn about our mistake. Thank you, Olga
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Al Iverson <[email protected]>wrote: > I'm not convinced the message was bulked for a reason other than DMARC > policy. > > Standing outside the black box, I can't necessarily tell what's going > on inside. But this happens a few times a month, each time with a > different subscriber on DMARC-Discuss, and it is always somebody who > implemented a DMARC policy that I would consider unwise. In this case, > the "why was this put in spam" message was the "BE CAREFUL! WE CAN'T > CONFIRM THAT THIS IS REALLY FROM WHO IT CLAIMS TO BE FROM!" one, which > is certainly suggestive to me of some combination of either auth > failure or DMARC policy intersection. > > So if the INTENT is for Gmail to not ding those messages for a DMARC > policy-related reason, then perhaps somebody might want to look > closer, because it smells like a bug. > > Sure, I could be totally wrong. But I might not be. > > Cheers, > Al Iverson > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Elizabeth Zwicky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Two (and a half) separate issues. > > > > Al is correct; the sending domain would be wiser not to put p=reject for > this domain. > > > > This is independent of the fact that gmail 1) decided not to apply DMARC > to it because they are nice to mailing lists and 2) decided to put it into > the spam folder for some non-DMARC reason. > > > > Elizabeth > > > > On Apr 5, 2013, at 7:50 AM, Christine Borgia wrote: > > > >> Olga said that dis=none (disposition=none) -- means that Gmail applied > "none" policy instead of "reject". A "none" policy wouldn't cause mail to > be spam foldered, would it? > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Al Iverson > >> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 10:39 AM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] Gmail Authentication-Results header > >> > >> Apologies if I'm beating this to death, but here's another example of a > domain with active users participating in mailing lists, yet they have a > reject policy in place. This mail is going to my spam folder at Gmail as a > result: dmarc=fail (p=REJECT dis=none) d=junc.eu > >> > >> Might be wiser to not put p=reject for this domain. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Al Iverson > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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) > > > > > > -- > Al Iverson | Chicago, IL | (312) 725-0130 > Twitter: @aliverson / www.spamresource.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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)
