Re: Amavis and OpenDMARC

On 28/11/2023 19:45, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:

> On 21.11.23 12:06, Noel Butler wrote: But they are inter-twined, DMARC 
> just does what DKIM and SPF declare, so any perceived DMARC issues *do* 
> include DKIM and SPF

but this is irelevant here.

We will have to agree to disagree

> Not "a pass and a failure". A DKIM pass and SPF pass.
> 
> But when the SPF is not aligned, DMARC wording requires sending report 
> for "fo=1", because of RFC     something other than an aligned "pass" 
> result.

I think this thread is coming to an end as we seem to be going round in 
circles, SPF _alignment_ is governed by your DMARC policy, if you use 
_relaxed_ only _one_ need pass so why if you use _relaxed_ would you 
expect it to mail you if they dont match, if you want full alignment I 
guess trying _simple_ :)

> So, generally do you recommend us not to follow RFC and risk possible 
> issues that are currently unseen?
> I prefer fixing the RFC instead.

I think the RFC overall is fine maybe some wording could be changed but 
its really cosmetic, and Scott K posted what to do if you think it needs 
changing, but for that you will need an abundance of evidence to support 
any changes I think.

-- 
Regards,
Noel Butler