Hi Peter, I believe the issue may be related to the fact that you don't publish separate SPF policies for your subdomains.
Please also check this article: http://www.openspf.org/FAQ/The_demon_question Regards Michiel DMARC Analyser Op 23 mrt. 2017 5:01 p.m. schreef "Peter Olsson via dmarc-discuss" < [email protected]>: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 04:39:39PM +0100, Petr Novák wrote: > > Hello, > > > > > But we have SPF pass on the subdomain SD.MD.se, so shouldn't > > > the SPF alignment between MD.se and SD.MD.se generate a pass > > > in DMARC as well? > > > > > > Or is it the other way round with SPF alignment? > > > I thought that alignment works both ways. > > > > Yes DMARC should pass if SPF passed and is aligned. But it looks like > > google didn't find SPF record and only used "best guess". I am not sure > > how gmail handles DMARC in that case. It may be that gmail ignores SPF > > result if its only based on best guess. > > Ok, I understand. I thought that it might have to do with the > "best guess" SPF pass, but I hoped not. This means that we > have a lot more work to do with publishing SPF for server > names, before we can move DMARC from p=none to p=reject > on the main domain. > > Thanks for your help! > > Peter Olsson > > _______________________________________________ > 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)
