Le 8 février 2024 19:12:45 GMT+04:00, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> a écrit : >> On 2024-02-08, Archange via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> wrote: >> [...] >>> No, I agree with you (I’m running two forwarders that have no issues so >>> far). And having a DMARC enforcing policy without DKIM is a bad idea. >>> >>> I would have wished that DMARC would require both SPF and DKIM, but now >>> it is too late for that. Hopefully they are not a lot of domain that do >>> DMARC without DKIM. > >On 08.02.24 10:24, Julian Bradfield via mailop wrote: >> But if DMARC required alignment on both SPF and DKIM, forwarding would >> break, wouldn't it? > >Correct, and this would make DKIM useless. >
Sorry if I wasn’t clear, I did not meant alignment when I wrote “require”. Just that they are implemented and passing. But indeed I am not sure of the value in SPF passing without alignment though (in a context of DMARC and DKIM working — outside of that it definitively has close to zero, it just means you took the time to set it up). Now that I think about it I’m not sure what SPF brings at all when there is DKIM… I can’t see a scenario where one would be able to correctly DKIM sign a message but not send from an allowed IP. _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
