Hi,
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 1:15 PM Bill Cole < sausers-20150...@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote: > On 2022-05-26 at 10:59:29 UTC-0400 (Thu, 26 May 2022 10:59:29 -0400) > Alex <mysqlstud...@gmail.com> > is rumored to have said: > > [...] > > Ugh, and again we already have DKIM_AU and SPF_PASS and DMARC_REJECT > > all > > hitting. > > Can you get these to match by re-running the same message with the > 'spamassassin' script? If so, try it with "-D DMARC" to get all the > messages from the plugin. They may be illuminating. > This is from the example provided earlier today. It says SPF failed(?) but it hit SPF_PASS May 26 14:25:12.080 [370198] dbg: DMARC: using Mail::DMARC::PurePerl for DMARC checks May 26 14:25:12.146 [370198] dbg: DMARC: result: pass, disposition: none, dkim: pass, spf: fail (spf: pass, spf_helo: fail) My suspicion *from a very quick 1st look at the code* is that the logic > for DMARC_REJECT is wrong, in that it seems to mean 'DMARC validation is > good' && 'p=reject,' which seems less than useful. > Any idea when this bug may have been introduced? It seems like a pretty serious problem to just be overlooked? And my confusion was actually only with the comments in the new DMARC.pm not reflecting 25_dmarc.cf with the new priority settings. It does appear I'm using the latest.
