On 19.04.2018 18:38, A. Schulze via dmarc-discuss wrote: > Am 19.04.2018 um 08:30 schrieb Juri Haberland via dmarc-discuss: >> [btw. the SPF result seems wrong: "none" instead of "pass" for a mail from >> the opendmarc-users ML] > > RFC5321.MailFrom for messages from opendmarc-users is > "f...@trusteddomain.org". > That generate "spf=pass > smtp.mailfrom=opendmarc-users-boun...@trusteddomain.org" > but for DMARC that's unaligned. > > So, which report do you refer? what do you see and what do you expect? > It may be possible, there are bugs in rspamd's dmarc code. I like to > understand and report them upstream. > But I like to avoid a situation where the developer ask me something I'm not > prepared to answer :-)
I refer to the <auth_results> section, not the <policy_evaluated> section, see: > <record> > <row> > <source_ip>208.69.40.157</source_ip> > <count>1</count> > <policy_evaluated> > <disposition>none</disposition> > <dkim>fail</dkim> > <spf>fail</spf> > </policy_evaluated> > </row> > <identifiers> > <header_from>sapienti-sat.org</header_from> > </identifiers> > <auth_results> > <dkim> > <domain>sapienti-sat.org</domain> > <result>fail</result> > </dkim> > <spf> > <domain>trusteddomain.org</domain> > <result>none</result> __________________________^^^^ > </spf> > </auth_results> > </record> Cheers, Juri _______________________________________________ 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)
