Re: [dmarc-discuss] exegesis: pass and fail together

I meant to say that the spec is unclear about what you do about **reporting** multiple DKIM results. It's perfectly clear on how to evaluate them. Elizabeth On Thursday, July 7, 2016 9:32 AM, Elizabeth Zwicky via dmarc-discuss wrote: SPF can pass without

Re: [dmarc-discuss] exegesis: pass and fail together

policies for sub-domains). - Roland -- From: dmarc-discuss <dmarc-discuss-boun...@dmarc.org> on behalf of Thomas Krichel via dmarc-discuss <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> Sent: Tuesday, 5 July 2016 15:41 To: DMARC-discuss Subject: [dmarc-discuss] exegesis: pass and fail together  

Re: [dmarc-discuss] exegesis: pass and fail together

On Tue 05/Jul/2016 09:41:07 +0200 Thomas Krichel via dmarc-discuss wrote: I am new to DMARC. Google have sent me a report that I attach. 2a01:4f8:190:62e8::68 7 none pass fail openlib.org ... lists.openlib.org pass How can

Re: [dmarc-discuss] exegesis: pass and fail together

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

[dmarc-discuss] exegesis: pass and fail together

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 openlib.org pass openlib.org fail How can it fail and pass at the same time? Then about SPF 2a01:4f8:190:62e8::68 7 none pass fail