On 28/11/2023 19:45, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 21.11.23 12:06, Noel Butler wrote: But they are inter-twined, DMARC
just does what DKIM and SPF declare, so any perceived DMARC issues *do*
include DKIM and SPF
but this is irelevant here.
We will have to agree to disagree
Not "a pass and a failure". A DKIM pass and SPF pass.
But when the SPF is not aligned, DMARC wording requires sending report
for "fo=1", because of RFC something other than an aligned "pass"
result.
I think this thread is coming to an end as we seem to be going round in
circles, SPF _alignment_ is governed by your DMARC policy, if you use
_relaxed_ only _one_ need pass so why if you use _relaxed_ would you
expect it to mail you if they dont match, if you want full alignment I
guess trying _simple_ :)
So, generally do you recommend us not to follow RFC and risk possible
issues that are currently unseen?
I prefer fixing the RFC instead.
I think the RFC overall is fine maybe some wording could be changed but
its really cosmetic, and Scott K posted what to do if you think it needs
changing, but for that you will need an abundance of evidence to support
any changes I think.
--
Regards,
Noel Butler
