Re: whitelist_auth return_path / from

Dave Funk skrev den 2024-07-03 09:29:
> On Wed, 3 Jul 2024, Simon Wilson via users wrote:

> You say "passing SPF and DKIM" however in the SA rules report it 
> clearly says:
> DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_INVALID=0.1
> 
> So eventho you think 'passed DKIM' SA clearly does NOT think it does. 
> That DKIM_INVALID will prevent the whitelist_auth from firing, thus you 
> need to investigate what's going wrong there.

whitelist_auth support Return-Path so spf is evaluated aswell as dkim is

grep logs DKIM_VALID_EF

or enable DMARC plugin
Hi Benny, none of that helps unless I'm being dense this evening :-D
 * I know whitelist_auth supports spf and dkim, that is in the documentation * Grepping for DKIM_VALID_EF only tells me what I now already know - SA thinks that one of the emails did not pass DKIM, when my server validated that it did and entered an Authentication-Results header saying that it did * I already have DMARC assessment, and that is shown in the headers I postedAuthentication-Results: mail.simonandkate.net; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=wasabi.com
The authentication headers that my server adds are:Authentication-Results: mail.simonandkate.net;
	spf=none smtp.helo=o562.ptr9861.wasabi.com;
	spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mmemail.wasabi.com
Authentication-Results: mail.simonandkate.net; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=wasabi.com
Authentication-Results: mail.simonandkate.net; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=159.183.86.216
Authentication-Results: mail.simonandkate.net;
	dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=wasabi.com [email protected] header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mmd header.b=uhRSt2r0
However SA thinks DKIM failed. 
 
I note your other email Benny on adding authres settings. I'm not averse to doing so, but would like to first understand why SA is behaving differently with these two emails.
 
Simon