I meant to say that the spec is unclear about what you do about **reporting**
multiple DKIM results. It's perfectly clear on how to evaluate them.
Elizabeth
On Thursday, July 7, 2016 9:32 AM, Elizabeth Zwicky via dmarc-discuss
<dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:
SPF can pass without being a relevant pass for DMARC; DMARC requires it not
only to pass but also to align with From:. As Alessandro pointed out, your
DMARC record specifically prevents a lists.openlib.org SPF pass from being an
openlib.org DMARC SPF pass.
And yes, it's entirely possible for a message to have 2 or more DKIM
signatures, including signatures for the same domain with different results. As
long as there exists a DKIM signature that is aligned and passes, the DMARC
DKIM result is pass. (As I recall, the spec is unclear about what you do if
there are multiple DKIM results. That should probably be fixed and it would be
nice if we allowed the selector to be reported as well.)
Elizabeth
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 12:54 AM, Thomas Krichel via dmarc-discuss
<dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:
Hi gang,
I am new to DMARC. Google have sent me a report that I attach.
I am puzzled by what I am reading. About DKIM
<dkim>
<domain>openlib.org</domain>
<result>pass</result>
</dkim>
<dkim>
<domain>openlib.org</domain>
<result>fail</result>
</dkim>
How can it fail and pass at the same time?
Then about SPF
<record>
<row>
<source_ip>2a01:4f8:190:62e8::68</source_ip>
<count>7</count>
<policy_evaluated>
<disposition>none</disposition>
<dkim>pass</dkim>
<spf>fail</spf>
</policy_evaluated>
</row>
<identifiers>
<header_from>openlib.org</header_from>
</identifiers>
<auth_results>
...
<spf>
<domain>lists.openlib.org</domain>
<result>pass</result>
</spf>
</auth_results>
</record>
How can it say that the SPF fails in the policy evaluated,
but later say it passes. Could this be me posting to a mailing
list, with the from: saying kric...@openlib.org, but forwarded
by lists.openlib.org? 2a01:4f8:190:62e8::68 is SPF authorized to
send mail for both lists.openlib.org and openlib.org, so this
would still be puzzling.
--
Cheers,
Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel
skype:thomaskrichel
_______________________________________________
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
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
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
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
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
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)
