Re: [dmarc-ietf] Why does DKIM fail when SPF succeeds (was: DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal)

OLIVIER HUREAU wrote on 2023-07-24 11:20: > c) There is a pattern of similar looking reports, which omit the element in the altogether and always report fail in the policy result. I suspect a product, which makes it a bit too easy to enable DMARC validation without also enabling DKIM verifica

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Why does DKIM fail when SPF succeeds (was: DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal)

nvoyé: Dimanche 23 Juillet 2023 22:05:44 Objet: [dmarc-ietf] Why does DKIM fail when SPF succeeds (was: DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal) Barry Leiba wrote on 2023-06-10 01:50: > That's interesting and disturbing if it remains consistent. > Theoretically, DKIM should *never* fai

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Why does DKIM fail when SPF succeeds (was: DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal)

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote on 2023-07-24 00:10: On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 1:06 PM Matthäus Wander > wrote: b) Messages are generated by an automated system without a Date header and signed by a central MTA. An outgoing mail gateway then adds the

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Why does DKIM fail when SPF succeeds (was: DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal)

On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 1:06 PM Matthäus Wander wrote: > b) Messages are generated by an automated system without a Date header > and signed by a central MTA. An outgoing mail gateway then adds the > missing Date header (Postfix option 'always_add_missing_headers'), thus > invalidating the DKIM s

[dmarc-ietf] Why does DKIM fail when SPF succeeds (was: DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal)

Barry Leiba wrote on 2023-06-10 01:50: That's interesting and disturbing if it remains consistent. Theoretically, DKIM should *never* fail when SPF succeeds, so if that's happening it means there is: 1. bad signing software, 2. bad verifying software, 3. misconfiguration somewhere, ...or a combin