Doug, this is Wildcat! SMTP - one of the oldest SMPT packages around. Summary
here:
Without some signal at wcSMTP about DMARC, SPF will most likely remain a hard
rejection at WCSAP/SMTP (at RCPT state) before DMARC at DATA
Background:
Since 2003, out of the box, Wildcat! SMTP with add-on
+1
> On Jun 27, 2023, at 11:06 AM, Tobias Herkula
> wrote:
>
> Signing That, nothing to add.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: dmarc On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 4:24 PM
> To: Alessandro Vesely
> Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM,
Since 2003, here is my out of the box, Wildcat! SMTP with wcSAP and wcDKIM
add-on support, mail flow:
(Note: for the record, email is a small Part, but a supportive part for many
customer operations)
At SMTP, starting with connection
1) If Enabled, Check for DNS-RBL IP check, respond at step
Signing That, nothing to add.
-Original Message-
From: dmarc On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 4:24 PM
To: Alessandro Vesely
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal
I don't understand how most of your message fits
I don't understand how most of your message fits into this discussion:
you're comparing SPF's policy points with DMARC policy. we're talking
about SPF as an authentication mechanism together with DKIM (not
DMARC) as an authentication mechanism... and then using those
authentication results in
Ale, here is an attempt at a formal model. Application to the current
question is at the very end.
Any test (DKIM, SPF, ARC) has these result possibilities:
- Pass
- No data or uncertain result
- Fail
The test results are imperfect, so we have to consider these probabilities
On Mon 26/Jun/2023 20:13:53 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote:
I'm saying I don't want "and" to be an option, because I think it's
damaging to DMARC. There is no reason anyone should ever want to say
that, and providing the option asks for misconfigurations because
people think it's somehow "more
On Mon 26/Jun/2023 19:32:53 +0200 Douglas Foster wrote:
DKIM+SPF says "our domain, including subdomains covered by this policy,
will never use an ESP". (Since most ESP messages pass SPF based on the ESP
domain)
ESPs can provide include files for those who wish otherwise.
Best
Ale
--
