Thanks for the reply -

So pertaining to my same query; if the message would be aligned in below
scenario? I am still scratching my head :(

1 -
aspf=s
adkim=s

from: [email protected]
return-path: [email protected]
d=example.com
spf=neutral

Or since aspf=s then should be spf=pass?

What would happen in the auto-forwarding scenario? sine again spf would I
guess break?

On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 3:23 PM Alessandro Vesely via dmarc-discuss <
[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun 27/Sep/2020 09:14:46 +0200 Blason R via dmarc-discuss wrote:
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > I am starting with DMARC implementation and analysing the XML report
> without
> > any GUI tool just to clear my understanding. Can someone please confirm
> if
> > below marked in *bold* is correct?
>
>
> Yup, it sounds correct.
>
>
> >   <policy_published>
> >      <domain>example.com</domain>   ==> DMARC Policy published by our
> domain example.com; referred by Reporting ORG?
>
>
> Example.org is the domain where the reporting ORG got a DMARC record from.
> That is, the From: domain of the messages reported in a given report.
>
>
> >      <adkim>r</adkim>
> >      <aspf>r</aspf>
> >      <p>none</p>
> >      <pct>100</pct>
> >      <fo>0</fo>
> >   </policy_published>
>
> > [...]
>
> >   <policy_evaluated>
> >      <disposition>none</disposition> *==> Action taken on the mail by
> Reporting Org??*
>
>
> Just how evaluating the policy affected the action.  For example, consider
> a
> message which got 15 spam points and was therefore quarantined.  That has
> nothing to do with DMARC, so "none" can be correct.
>
> Some say "pass" instead of "none", meaning the same.
>
>
> >      <dkim>pass</dkim>
> >      <spf>pass</spf>
>
>
> That includes alignment considerations.
>
>
> >   </policy_evaluated> *--> What Policy is evaluated*
>
>
> It should be the policy referred as "published" above.  Some reporting
> ORGs
> send multiple records in case a sender changes policy during the day,
> collecting the corresponding evaluations.  I wouldn't count much on that;
> reports about policy changes should be interpreted with a grain of salt.
>
>
> Best
> Ale
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> 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
[email protected]
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)

Reply via email to