Brotman, Alex wrote on 2024-03-23 19:17:
Thanks for the feedback. I believe I've corrected all except
- 2.1: "(...) while there MUST be one spf sub-element". At least one according to the XML Schema
Definition (might be two, each with a different scope "helo" and "mfrom").
Can we talk about how this looks in a sample report?
Sure, sample follows. It's a rare sighting, but I believe it's valid.
<record>
<row>
<source_ip>195.201.14.36</source_ip>
<count>3</count>
<policy_evaluated>
<disposition>none</disposition>
<dkim>pass</dkim>
<spf>pass</spf>
</policy_evaluated>
</row>
<identifiers>
<envelope_from>wander.science</envelope_from>
<header_from>wander.science</header_from>
</identifiers>
<auth_results>
<dkim>
<domain>wander.science</domain>
<selector>2023-05-rsa</selector>
<result>pass</result>
<human_result>pass</human_result>
</dkim>
<dkim>
<domain>wander.science</domain>
<selector>2023-05-ed25519</selector>
<result>neutral</result>
<human_result>invalid (unsupported algorithm
ed25519-sha256)</human_result>
</dkim>
<spf>
<domain>mail.swznet.de</domain>
<scope>helo</scope>
<result>pass</result>
</spf>
<spf>
<domain>wander.science</domain>
<scope>mfrom</scope>
<result>pass</result>
</spf>
</auth_results>
</record>
Regards,
Matt
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
