Re: [dmarc-discuss] Strong hint Microsoft is heading to p=reject ?

This is not related to DMARC. This is related to our on-prem/hybrid customer base who send email this way: On-prem --> Office 365 --> Internet Suppose I want to relay email through the service, and let's suppose I have provisioned the following domains with Office 365: 1. contoso.com 2.

[dmarc-discuss] Strong hint Microsoft is heading to p=reject ?

Hello all. Please consider this Microsoft blog post, titled "Important notice for Office 365 email customers who have configured connectors": http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2016/03/29/important-notice-for-office-365-email-customers-who-have-configured-connectors.aspx As I read

Re: [dmarc-discuss] is that *really* valid

Even in this case Lastname is not a valid mailbox as it does not have a valid email address, even when you take into account the EAI update it should have been written as Lastname; Strictly speaking the ABNI allows display name with no double quotes as long you don't use any special characters

Re: [dmarc-discuss] is that *really* valid

Of cause From: Lastname, Firstname is a result of omitted backslash or double quotes. The fact is, according to RFC 5322 it's valid RFC5322.From field with 2 mailboxes in it and is not covered by RFC 7489. OpenDMARC implementation follows to known best practices noticed in RFC

Re: [dmarc-discuss] is that *really* valid

Vladimir, We are not discussing here the fact you can put 2 mailboxes in a From: but that the display part must be between double quotes. A mailbox is an optional display part within double quotes followed by an email address within <>. Mailboxes are separated by comas ,. On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at

[dmarc-discuss] New From Google?

Over the past few days I have started to notice on my dmarc reports from google a rather large number of messages going through that have the tag value as "looks forwarded, downgrade to quarantine with phishing warning” which seems to be different than the standard “forwarded" value (which

Re: [dmarc-discuss] is that *really* valid

It happens a lot.. The obsoleted format allowed it, not the recent one. I think we should ignore the obsolete format now... The problem is: From: j...@example.com Which certain quite old versions of .net do. On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:26 AM, A. Schulze via dmarc-discuss <

Re: [dmarc-discuss] is that *really* valid

This From contains 2 mailboxes (Lastname and u...@yahoo.com). This is valid RFC 5322 syntax from= "From:" mailbox-list CRLF ... mailbox-list= (mailbox *("," mailbox)) / obs-mbox-list but it's invalid for DMARC RFC 7489 and it's not covered by DMARC specification:

Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC configuration when using spam solution in Front of O365

Broadly speaking, you need to do this: * Make sure SPF passes for your outbound email. That means you need to advertise an SPF record for your sending domain in DNS, which includes spf.messagelabs.com. * Configure O365 to DKIM sign outbound emails for your sending domain. * Make sure the

[dmarc-discuss] is that *really* valid

Hello, I noticed a message with this RFC5322.From: From: Lastname, Firstname the message was authenticated by SPF and DKIM but opendmarc rejected finally. Is this From really valid? I would quote the displayname. If it's valid, I hit a bug in OpenDMARC. If it's invalid,