Thanks Tim! I currently don’t have a dmarcian account, I just use the site as a resource for your tools and information. I could join up tomorrow when I get into work if it would help you solve this problem. Our DKIM records had to be changed just a couple of days prior to going to full reject if that might have caused this… but drastic measures had to be taken as our dmarc reports were showing something like 80-95% was straight up junk.
Thanks, John Miller > On Jan 27, 2016, at 6:51 PM, Tim Draegen via dmarc-discuss > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Jan 26, 2016, at 10:36 AM, John Corey Miller via dmarc-discuss >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> We have Google Apps for Business set-up with our domain name for our >> business. >> >> Since making the change to fully reject mail that fails dmarc, the number of >> messages counted as coming through "Forwarders" on our dmarc reports when >> run through this tool https://dmarcian.com/dmarc-xml/ has drastically >> increased. In many cases these new "Forwarders" are the same IPs that >> previously were coming through as "Threat/Unknown" (clearly fishers.) >> >> Does this mean that after seeing that google started rejecting their e-mails >> they changed something about how they're sending them to attempt to >> circumvent these rejections? If so, does any action have to be taken to >> prevent this circumvention? > > > Hi John, > > FWIW, you can email [email protected] with any dmarcian-related questions. > I spend a lot of time there answering questions.. which is a bit easier as > then I can look & comment about your data! > > That said, some replies to this thread are likely true. If you're seeing the > "forwarded" flag explicitly set, then this means the receiver in question > accepted the email regardless of your published policy, as they understand > the email to..well, be forwarded. > > It is not exactly common, but over the past few years certain > spammers/phishers have figured out how to exploit servers that are being > recognized as "forwarders" by the big players. Once these servers are > identified, they try to deliver as much crap as they can before being > stopped. And... the cycle continues. > > A different idea is that "reject" happened after putting in place DKIM > signatures. The dmarcian site does a better job identifying "Forwarders" (as > a category, and not as a flag in XML) when DKIM is in place. So if you did > DKIM and reject at ~same time, this might be a factor. However, if you're > seeing junk from all over the world, it's worth dropping a note to > [email protected] and we'll package up your data along with a note to the > bigger players to plug their holes. > > =- Tim > > _______________________________________________ > 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)
