On Thursday, May 07, 2015 02:09:09 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > I think it's wrong to describe that as a DMARC result. For DMARC as > > specified, that's a fail. > > More precisely, for both DKIM and DMARC it's a fail. For DKIM+ATPS-04, > it's a pass, but DMARC doesn't pay attention to that. > > I think it's also important to note that this only proves interoperability > with a single implementation (granted, in multiple roles), unless there's > data indicating multiple implementations are involved. This seems > unlikely, since as far as I know there aren't any other implementations of > ATPS-04 or even the RFC version. OpenDKIM did the RFC version, and it's > not compatible with -04. > > Also, this is only part of the whole story. There's still that pesky > registration problem to address. I think for ATPS or anything like it to > be considered a plausible thing to pursue, that's critical. It might be > interesting to know some of the characteristics of the largest operator > involved in that report (total domains, total users, details about MLM > traffic, etc.). > > -MSK
No, it's OK for DKIM. The trick is d=ietf.org, which doesn't align for DMARC purposes. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
