I just wanted to take a moment to thank everyone on this list for their participation in the conversation.
Folks like Anshul bringing up problems and then Olga closing the loop like this is why the list exists. The operational experience and responsiveness of this community is really amazing. Thank you all for your ongoing contributions. Yours, Trent On 7/25/13 10:40 AM, Olga Gavrylyako wrote: > Hi Anshul, > We had a bug, where in > <spf> > <domain>pm.mtasv.net <http://pm.mtasv.net></domain> > <result>pass</result> > </spf> > > we reported result of spf pass for DMARC authentication (spf pass + > alignment), instead of just raw SPF pass. We fixed it this week and > rolling to production. You are lucky, you hit the day where both > reporting version were alive at some moment of time :) > Starting tomorrow, there will be no such discrepancy. > Olga > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Anshul Agrawal > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Attaching the Aggregate Report received today from Google. The SPF > 'auth_results' are marked as 'fail' for all the IPs however it > should pass. Yahoo and Hotmail reports it fine. > > For auth_results, RFC says "This element contains DKIM and SPF > results, uninterpreted with respect to DMARC." > > Can someone help identify the issue? Attaching the aggregated > report from google and hotmail. > > Thanks, > Anshul > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Anshul Agrawal > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi, > I have turned on the DMARC in monitor mode and started > receiving the reports from Yahoo, Google, and Hotmail. The > third party ESP we use has proper SPF records in place and > uses our DKIM ket to sign the mail. > > Google seems to report, for the same IP and 'Return-Path' > domain, SPF fail and pass in the same report. Moreover, one > day, all the IPs were reported to fail the SPF check. > > Note that in the below messages, SPF checks fail for far more > number of times than it is regarded as pass. However, all the > test mails that I have sent to Gmail, all of them show SPF > pass so far when I check headers and have never failed. > > <record> > <row> > <source_ip>50.31.156.116</source_ip> > <count>15</count> > ... > ... > <spf> > <domain>pm.mtasv.net <http://pm.mtasv.net></domain> > <result>fail</result> > </spf> > </auth_results> > </record> > > And > > <record> > <row> > <source_ip>50.31.156.116</source_ip> > <count>2</count> > ... > ... > <spf> > <domain>pm.mtasv.net <http://pm.mtasv.net></domain> > <result>pass</result> > </spf> > </auth_results> > </record> > > IMHO given the same IP and domain, SPF check should not fail > for some pass for other requests (given the DNS records are > not updated) > > Am I missing something? > > Thanks, > Anshul > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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) -- J. Trent Adams Profile: http://www.mediaslate.org/jtrentadams/ LinkedIN: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jtrentadams Twitter: http://twitter.com/jtrentadams _______________________________________________ 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)
