[dmarc-discuss] who is wrong: google or opendmarc?

Franck Martin fmartin at linkedin.com
Wed Jul 24 12:55:27 PDT 2013


I concur

I thought it was the strict alignment which was a problem, but as service3.zalando-lounge.de<http://service3.zalando-lounge.de> has a dmarc record and not zalando-lounge.de<http://zalando-lounge.de> then the From: would have been @service3.zalando-lounge.de<http://service3.zalando-lounge.de> therefore the strict alignment and DKIM pass would have been enough to do a DMARC pass.

 https://dmarcian.com/dmarc-inspector/service3.zalando-lounge.de

So the opendmarc implementation has a config bug likely.

On Jul 24, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Olga Gavrylyako <olgag at google.com<mailto:olgag at google.com>> wrote:

Hi Andreas,
for DMARC we require either SPF or DKIM to pass. In your example DKIM passes.
Olga


On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Andreas Schulze <sca at andreasschulze.de<mailto:sca at andreasschulze.de>> wrote:

Zitat von Andreas Schulze <sca at andreasschulze.de>:

Authentication-Results: mta.example.org;
   dmarc=fail header.from=service3.zalando-lounge.de

Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; ...
   dmarc=pass (p=REJECT dis=NONE) d=service3.zalando-lounge.de

Hello,

I still noticed no response at all...
  * same sender
  * dmarc=pass @ google
  * dmarc=fail @ opendmarc

Maybe a googler could tell something.

Thanks

Andreas
_______________________________________________
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)

_______________________________________________
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org<mailto:dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org>
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.dmarc.org/pipermail/dmarc-discuss/attachments/20130724/1ef9819e/attachment.htm>


More information about the dmarc-discuss mailing list