Hello, Would someone please be kind enough to tell me how to Unsubscribe
from these emails ?
Thank you.
Carl Bongaerts Tel: 416-831-7841
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] Help
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 19:06:25 +0000
From: T Nguyen via dmarc-discuss <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org>
Reply-To: T Nguyen <t.nguye...@outlook.com>
To: Zachary Aab <z...@inboxpros.com>
CC: dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org>
v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; rua=mailto:dmarc-repo...@not-example.com
For the case above how does dmarc reports receiving domain (
not-example.com ) authorize example.com to send rua? The report
generator constructs “ *example.com._report._dmarc.not-example.com* “ to
check the authorization for a dns published record from not-example.com,
would a “ syntax error “ generate then if no such published record found?
Thanks,
tn
*From:* Zachary Aab <z...@inboxpros.com>
*Sent:* Wednesday, September 26, 2018 12:56 PM
*To:* t.nguye...@outlook.com
*Cc:* dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
*Subject:* Re: [dmarc-discuss] Help
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/
<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdmarcian.com%2Fdmarc-inspector%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C7733ed96804945dea67608d623d10766%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636735778010009370&sdata=fKOhx%2Bu5%2FGt20BpG4jTHe%2BJt8RWMhHz1UBm6GvasRgE%3D&reserved=0>
or similar, that might have been the cause (now that I poke the ones I
know of with google.com
<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgoogle.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C7733ed96804945dea67608d623d10766%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636735778010009370&sdata=Jx7NurW5pXy3ej7Ox8o65uMy8wNy63FWl3%2BRa%2FINNxc%3D&reserved=0>,
they all send back a thumbs up, however).
My best,
Zack Aab
Image removed by sender.
<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Finboxpros.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C7733ed96804945dea67608d623d10766%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636735778010009370&sdata=1DTLnLpGtMFq%2BLXNWqfgzMYazl70uUub0GtzNssfxng%3D&reserved=0>
*Zack Aab**| **Sr. Deliverability Strategist***Image removed by sender.
<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flinkedin.com%2Fin%2Fzachary-aab%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C7733ed96804945dea67608d623d10766%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636735778010009370&sdata=ZWMUHn2EsdqyBvSZGJF23HyI8lSyhSUuPS3%2B3azF9rY%3D&reserved=0>
*Inbox Pros
<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Finboxpros.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C7733ed96804945dea67608d623d10766%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636735778010009370&sdata=1DTLnLpGtMFq%2BLXNWqfgzMYazl70uUub0GtzNssfxng%3D&reserved=0>
*1995 N Park Place | Suite 300 | Atlanta
O: 678.214.3739 | C: 706-870-1061 | z...@inboxpros.com
<mailto:z...@inboxpros.com>
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 12:01 PM T Nguyen <t.nguye...@outlook.com
<mailto: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
<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgoogle.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C7733ed96804945dea67608d623d10766%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636735778010009370&sdata=Jx7NurW5pXy3ej7Ox8o65uMy8wNy63FWl3%2BRa%2FINNxc%3D&reserved=0>
but did not see any semicolon on their dmarc record.
*Error! Filename not specified.*
Best,
Tien
**
*Cc:* dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto:t.nguye...@outlook.com>>
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 25, 2018 9:30 PM
*To:* dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org <mailto:dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org>
*Subject:* Help
Appreciate any insight to the scenario below:
1. Can non-smtp ( no mx record ) domain example.com
<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fexample.com%26data%3D02%257C01%257C%257C783a87fd567f4a4a03d608d623b4fefe%257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%257C1%257C0%257C636735657605244735%26sdata%3DGDUodLDq9QiI0T1ulO8P5kCyUOLr%252FzSgSXGSgBvVkx4%253D%26reserved%3D0&data=02%7C01%7C%7C7733ed96804945dea67608d623d10766%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636735778010009370&sdata=qxV0tQ7556D42uGRa9WBCbvuwdrEJOvLStmweuQ6thE%3D&reserved=0>
be protected by dmarc? I inherited the below dmarc record
for this example.com
<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fexample.com%26data%3D02%257C01%257C%257C783a87fd567f4a4a03d608d623b4fefe%257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%257C1%257C0%257C636735657605244735%26sdata%3DGDUodLDq9QiI0T1ulO8P5kCyUOLr%252FzSgSXGSgBvVkx4%253D%26reserved%3D0&data=02%7C01%7C%7C7733ed96804945dea67608d623d10766%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636735778010009370&sdata=qxV0tQ7556D42uGRa9WBCbvuwdrEJOvLStmweuQ6thE%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:dmarc-repo...@not-example.com>,mailto:repo...@example-not.com
<mailto:repo...@example-not.com>
2. If dmarc cannot be implemented then what is the best way to
protect this non-smtp domain example.com
<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fexample.com%26data%3D02%257C01%257C%257C783a87fd567f4a4a03d608d623b4fefe%257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%257C1%257C0%257C636735657605244735%26sdata%3DGDUodLDq9QiI0T1ulO8P5kCyUOLr%252FzSgSXGSgBvVkx4%253D%26reserved%3D0&data=02%7C01%7C%7C7733ed96804945dea67608d623d10766%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636735778010009370&sdata=qxV0tQ7556D42uGRa9WBCbvuwdrEJOvLStmweuQ6thE%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://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fexample.com%26data%3D02%257C01%257C%257C783a87fd567f4a4a03d608d623b4fefe%257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%257C1%257C0%257C636735657605244735%26sdata%3DGDUodLDq9QiI0T1ulO8P5kCyUOLr%252FzSgSXGSgBvVkx4%253D%26reserved%3D0&data=02%7C01%7C%7C7733ed96804945dea67608d623d10766%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636735778010009370&sdata=qxV0tQ7556D42uGRa9WBCbvuwdrEJOvLStmweuQ6thE%3D&reserved=0>
Thank you in advance,
Best,
tn
_______________________________________________
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org <mailto:dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org>
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.dmarc.org%252Fmailman%252Flistinfo%252Fdmarc-discuss%26data%3D02%257C01%257C%257C783a87fd567f4a4a03d608d623b4fefe%257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%257C1%257C0%257C636735657605244735%26sdata%3DkbvrzTWTcONbokZ6Ia8brQ3B48R14f1%252F4oebr7IJYig%253D%26reserved%3D0&data=02%7C01%7C%7C7733ed96804945dea67608d623d10766%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636735778010009370&sdata=kAD%2F2kbiWwp7InYNHpcpvBk%2BWrGOr1i4V3CCDcOlnoA%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://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.dmarc.org%252Fnote_well.html%26data%3D02%257C01%257C%257C783a87fd567f4a4a03d608d623b4fefe%257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%257C1%257C0%257C636735657605244735%26sdata%3DrHInsjF809EbOmjazV4D5ubLJPcHmMFq4gM40sIUTrY%253D%26reserved%3D0&data=02%7C01%7C%7C7733ed96804945dea67608d623d10766%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636735778010009370&sdata=hf0z1TlfKd446d4wSYYcycN%2FZbDbIrc%2BH6nSjZ8IX5I%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)
_______________________________________________
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)
