> On 30 Dec 2020, at 09:42, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue 29/Dec/2020 22:02:20 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote: >> On 12/29/20 12:47 PM, Todd Herr wrote: >>>> Unless those values in parens are a MUST requirement, the dmarc=fail is >>>> highly misleading. > > > I agree with Michael here. When a (trusted) dmarc=fail is seen downstream, > its consumers neither know what policy was specified nor whether it was > honored.
The auth-res result posted as an example of DMARC failing earlier in this thread: Authentication-Results: mx.google.com <http://mx.google.com/>; dkim=pass [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> header.s=ietf1 header.b=aayvF8Pg; dkim=pass [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> header.s=ietf1 header.b="PwU4/yuQ"; dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> header.s=201712 header.b=PRr8Q7Zv; spf=pass (google.com <http://google.com/>: domain of [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> designates 4.31.198.44 as permitted sender) [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=mrochek.com <http://mrochek.com/> The policy statement is right there: p=NONE. laura -- Having an Email Crisis? We can help! 800 823-9674 Laura Atkins Word to the Wise [email protected] (650) 437-0741 Email Delivery Blog: https://wordtothewise.com/blog
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
