No problem! It's not strictly necessary, realistically most receivers will likely handle little things like that just fine.
>Is the semicolon needed for the rua clause t the end for dmarc statement? I was just spitballing that if the syntax error you were talking about was from a "DMARC checker" like https://dmarcian.com/dmarc-inspector/ or similar, that might have been the cause (now that I poke the ones I know of with google.com, they all send back a thumbs up, however). My best, Zack Aab <http://inboxpros.com/> *Zack Aab | Sr. Deliverability Strategist* <http://linkedin.com/in/zachary-aab/> *Inbox Pros <http://inboxpros.com/> *1995 N Park Place | Suite 300 | Atlanta O: 678.214.3739 | C: 706-870-1061 | z...@inboxpros.com On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 12:01 PM T Nguyen <t.nguye...@outlook.com> wrote: > Thank you response Zachary, will check to see how syntax error was > generated. > > > > Is the semicolon needed for the rua clause t the end for dmarc statement? > I’ve checked a couple including google.com but did not see any semicolon > on their dmarc record. > > > > > > > > Best, > > Tien > > > > *Cc:* dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org > *Subject:* Re: [dmarc-discuss] Help > > > > The sub/domain should be protected by the DMARC record even without an MX > record, I can't find anything in the RFC to say otherwise and some senders > (mostly marketing, ime) use 5322.from domains with no MX records and a > "Reply-to:" header with a working domain. > > > > >Could the syntax error caused by the receiving domain may not have the > txt record to authorize the reports reception? > > It certainly could, of course we can't check up on that without the > domain. The answer will probably depend on what is actually throwing the > syntax error, is it a DMARC-checking tool on the internet, a receiver's > DMARC filter, or your DNS provider? > > > > It looks like your last clause (rua=) is missing the semicolon at the end, > receivers will care about that to varying degrees but it might be causing > the error you see, again depending on what's giving the error. > > > > My best, > > Zack Aab > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:37 PM T Nguyen via dmarc-discuss < > dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: > > Could the syntax error caused by the receiving domain may not have the txt > record to authorize the reports reception? > > > > *From:* T Nguyen <t.nguye...@outlook.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 25, 2018 9:30 PM > *To:* dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org > *Subject:* Help > > > > Appreciate any insight to the scenario below: > > > > 1. Can non-smtp ( no mx record ) domain example.com > > <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C783a87fd567f4a4a03d608d623b4fefe%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636735657605244735&sdata=GDUodLDq9QiI0T1ulO8P5kCyUOLr%2FzSgSXGSgBvVkx4%3D&reserved=0> > be protected by dmarc? I inherited the below dmarc record for this > example.com > > <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C783a87fd567f4a4a03d608d623b4fefe%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636735657605244735&sdata=GDUodLDq9QiI0T1ulO8P5kCyUOLr%2FzSgSXGSgBvVkx4%3D&reserved=0> > with spf record as “ v=spf1 -all “. The result was a dmarc syntax error. > > > > v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; rua=mailto:dmarc-repo...@not-example.com > ,mailto:repo...@example-not.com > > > > 1. If dmarc cannot be implemented then what is the best way to protect > this non-smtp domain example.com > > <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C783a87fd567f4a4a03d608d623b4fefe%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636735657605244735&sdata=GDUodLDq9QiI0T1ulO8P5kCyUOLr%2FzSgSXGSgBvVkx4%3D&reserved=0> > from being spoofed by mal-intention senders that can fool naïve users? > Although with spf record “ v=spf1 -all “alone should work for dmarc record > to set policy reject all email using this non-email domain example.com > > <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C783a87fd567f4a4a03d608d623b4fefe%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636735657605244735&sdata=GDUodLDq9QiI0T1ulO8P5kCyUOLr%2FzSgSXGSgBvVkx4%3D&reserved=0> > > > > Thank you in advance, > > Best, > > tn > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc-discuss mailing list > dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org > http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss > <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dmarc.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdmarc-discuss&data=02%7C01%7C%7C783a87fd567f4a4a03d608d623b4fefe%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636735657605244735&sdata=kbvrzTWTcONbokZ6Ia8brQ3B48R14f1%2F4oebr7IJYig%3D&reserved=0> > > NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well > terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html > <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dmarc.org%2Fnote_well.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C783a87fd567f4a4a03d608d623b4fefe%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636735657605244735&sdata=rHInsjF809EbOmjazV4D5ubLJPcHmMFq4gM40sIUTrY%3D&reserved=0> > ) > >
_______________________________________________ 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)
