Benny Pedersen wrote:
if srs was used it will never get spf pass, since origal sender ip
is outside of original sender ip allow, better let it die slowly
On 29.04.20 08:16, Philip wrote:
do you mean letting SRS die slowly?
better not; still better to have SPF pass with unaligned (failed) DMA
On 28 Apr 2020, at 4:42, Philip wrote:
Hello
I sent a message from mail.ru, who has p=reject setting in their DMARC
record, to an email account at OVH.
OVH forwards this email to gmail, as we know during the forwarding OVH
doesn't implement SRS. So after receiving the email, gmail shows SPF
> Scott, I have another question.
Gents, I love geeking about email and spam techniques but these are not
postfix related nor do they relate to beer*. IMO these should be
discussed elsewhere.
Regards,
KAM
* There are some mailing lists with exclusions that discussions on beer
are always on-top
On 2020-04-28 14:17, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
however, SPF will not fail here. So, sender using DKIM and forwarder
using
SRS fill make both SPF and DMARC pass.
spf domain changes on next-hop, so its another domains spf that deside
if spf pass or not pass, might be why postfix maillist
On Tuesday, April 28, 2020 8:17:54 AM EDT Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >>Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >>> Yes. If either passes and the relevant identifier is aligned, DMARC
> >>> passes.
> >
> >On April 28, 2020 9:29:59 AM UTC, Philip wrote:
> >>Scott, I have another question.
> >>Given the case
Scott Kitterman wrote:
Yes. If either passes and the relevant identifier is aligned, DMARC
passes.
On April 28, 2020 9:29:59 AM UTC, Philip wrote:
Scott, I have another question.
Given the case there is no DKIM signed in original message, when
forwarding MTA implement a SRS in the outgoing
On April 28, 2020 9:29:59 AM UTC, Philip wrote:
>Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Yes. If either passes and the relevant identifier is aligned, DMARC
>passes.
>
>Scott, I have another question.
>Given the case there is no DKIM signed in original message, when
>forwarding MTA implement a SRS in the o
On April 28, 2020 9:20:01 AM UTC, Philip wrote:
>Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> I predict you won't find this a satisfying answer, but the rest of
>RFC 7489.
>>
>> Instead of quoting bits of various web sites and how-to's back and
>forth, l think it makes sense to read the actual specification if y
On April 28, 2020 8:58:28 AM UTC, Philip wrote:
>Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> My question is, since SPF got SOFTFAIL by gmail, why it still says
>>> DMARC
>>> PASS? Shouldn't SPF failed cause DMARC failure?
>> No. See RFC 7489, Section 4.2, last paragraph.
>
>what's the background knowledge?
>
On April 28, 2020 8:42:20 AM UTC, Philip wrote:
>Hello
>
>I sent a message from mail.ru, who has p=reject setting in their DMARC
>record, to an email account at OVH.
>
>OVH forwards this email to gmail, as we know during the forwarding OVH
>doesn't implement SRS. So after receiving the email,
10 matches
Mail list logo
