I concur I thought it was the strict alignment which was a problem, but as service3.zalando-lounge.de<http://service3.zalando-lounge.de> has a dmarc record and not zalando-lounge.de<http://zalando-lounge.de> then the From: would have been @service3.zalando-lounge.de<http://service3.zalando-lounge.de> therefore the strict alignment and DKIM pass would have been enough to do a DMARC pass.
https://dmarcian.com/dmarc-inspector/service3.zalando-lounge.de So the opendmarc implementation has a config bug likely. On Jul 24, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Olga Gavrylyako <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Andreas, for DMARC we require either SPF or DKIM to pass. In your example DKIM passes. Olga On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Andreas Schulze <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Zitat von Andreas Schulze <[email protected]>: Authentication-Results: mta.example.org; dmarc=fail header.from=service3.zalando-lounge.de Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; ... dmarc=pass (p=REJECT dis=NONE) d=service3.zalando-lounge.de Hello, I still noticed no response at all... * same sender * dmarc=pass @ google * dmarc=fail @ opendmarc Maybe a googler could tell something. Thanks Andreas _______________________________________________ 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]<mailto:[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)
