Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit confused on the utility of a DNS record for DMARC external validation

> On Feb 20, 2018, at 11:24 AM, DMARC via dmarc-discuss > wrote: > QUESTION ONE: How is it possible for me to continue to receive aggregate > reports from domains that have no DMARC external validation for the receiving > domain ? Some DMARC report generators do not

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Google stopped sending out dmarc reports?

Just in case anyone ever wants to see what dmarcian.com sees in terms of processing of daily reports: https://dmarcian.com/dmarc-status The actual counts aren't as interesting as the absence of data you'll sometimes see. HTH, =- Tim > On Jan 30, 2016, at 8:11 AM, John Corey Miller via

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Increase in Forwarders Since Implementation of DMARC Reject Policy

> On Jan 26, 2016, at 10:36 AM, John Corey Miller via dmarc-discuss > wrote: > > We have Google Apps for Business set-up with our domain name for our business. > > Since making the change to fully reject mail that fails dmarc, the number of > messages counted as

Re: [dmarc-discuss] [Newbie warning] Both spf and dkim?

Hi Carlos, it might help to flip the perspective around to receivers. Receivers are looking for any positive signal that a piece of email can be connected to a domain. If that signal is due to SPF, great. If that signal is due to DKIM, that's great too. If both SPF and DKIM provide signals,

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender

On Jul 9, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Al Iverson via dmarc-discuss dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org wrote: I agree that it looks like a bum forwarder setup from what you've posted. Forgive the dumb question -- why are you sending reports to dmarc.org? No, this is just where dmarc.org is asking for reports

Re: [dmarc-discuss] probably bug in OpenDMARCs AR-header parser

Only thing I noticed was that there were multiple Auth-Res: headers in Andreas's example, one dkim= result per header. Slightly different from below, where multiple dkim= results are living in a single header. HTH, =- Tim On Jun 15, 2015, at 4:50 PM, John Levine via dmarc-discuss

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Has Google stopped sending DMARC reports?

Just to round this out, all Google data now appears to have been sent: https://dmarcian.com/dmarc-status/ =- Tim On Sep 21, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Tim Draegen via dmarc-discuss dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org wrote: Hullo! On Friday we (dmarcian.com) put up a dmarc-status page after discovering

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Has Google stopped sending DMARC reports?

Hullo! On Friday we (dmarcian.com) put up a dmarc-status page after discovering a missing day of Google-based data. On Friday, Google sent us a bunch of data to backfill Thursday. Since then, we haven't received any Google data. Google has been made aware of the issue. No ETA, but we

Re: [dmarc-discuss] SPF record for Google does not work with email notification coming from Google Analytic

Denis, I don't think you're doing anything wrong. Two things: 1. Google needs to extend it's google-apps signing to include email coming out Google Analytics. 2. The tool you're using that says Threat/Unknown is wrong. Since it looks like a slice of dmarcian.com, I'll fix this ('cause I

Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC rejections on domain with no DMARC record

On Jun 30, 2014, at 2:13 PM, John Levine via dmarc-discuss dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org wrote: I just saw a blizzard of DMARC rejects on a mailing list message from a subscriber with an address at netscape.net. (Yes, there still are a few.) That domain belongs to AOL, but publishes no DMARC

Re: [dmarc-discuss] why is this IP failing SPF?

Tomasz, can you share the rest of the xml record? Cant tell if there is an alignment issue or not without that. =- Tim On May 30, 2014, at 7:29 PM, Tomasz Chmielewski via dmarc-discuss dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org wrote: 178.63.195.102 is allowed in SPF: # dig +short TXT ptraveler.com

Re: [dmarc-discuss] About that From: field

On May 9, 2014, at 7:10 PM, Steve Atkins via dmarc-discuss dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org wrote: There's only a single author posting here now. Just thought I'd mention it. It's definitely broken some functionality I rely on - some of it easily fixable, some not. I thought for sure the archives