There can be 2 DKIM signatures, if e.g. message is forwarded by user. First one from original messages and it probably fails to verify and second one for forwarded messages and it passes.
Thomas Krichel via dmarc-discuss пишет: > Hi gang, > > I am new to DMARC. Google have sent me a report that I attach. > I am puzzled by what I am reading. About DKIM > > <dkim> > <domain>openlib.org</domain> > <result>pass</result> > </dkim> > <dkim> > <domain>openlib.org</domain> > <result>fail</result> > </dkim> > > How can it fail and pass at the same time? > Then about SPF > > <record> > <row> > <source_ip>2a01:4f8:190:62e8::68</source_ip> > <count>7</count> > <policy_evaluated> > <disposition>none</disposition> > <dkim>pass</dkim> > <spf>fail</spf> > </policy_evaluated> > </row> > <identifiers> > <header_from>openlib.org</header_from> > </identifiers> > <auth_results> > > ... > > <spf> > <domain>lists.openlib.org</domain> > <result>pass</result> > </spf> > </auth_results> > </record> > > How can it say that the SPF fails in the policy evaluated, > but later say it passes. Could this be me posting to a mailing > list, with the from: saying kric...@openlib.org, but forwarded > by lists.openlib.org? 2a01:4f8:190:62e8::68 is SPF authorized to > send mail for both lists.openlib.org and openlib.org, so this > would still be puzzling. > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc-discuss mailing list > dmarc-discuss@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) -- Vladimir Dubrovin @Mail.Ru
_______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list dmarc-discuss@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)
