Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B81200C79 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 21:13:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 1841A160BD1; Fri, 19 May 2017 19:13:28 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 5F0F9160BB0 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 21:13:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 49112 invoked by uid 500); 19 May 2017 19:13:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@spamassassin.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list users@spamassassin.apache.org Received: (qmail 49101 invoked by uid 99); 19 May 2017 19:13:26 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 May 2017 19:13:26 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 97982C00A9 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 19:13:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.302 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.302 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BAZNgFoGGLZH for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 19:13:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server07.engr.uiowa.edu (server07.engr.uiowa.edu [128.255.17.47]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 8DA835FD8E for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 19:13:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.engineering.uiowa.edu (smtp.engineering.uiowa.edu [128.255.18.24]) by s-l012.engr.uiowa.edu (8.14.9-icaen/8.12.9) with ESMTP id v4JJDMoK015113 for ; (envelope-from ) Fri, 19 May 2017 14:13:22 -0500 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.6 at s-l012 Received: from [2620:0:e50:7016:0:ff4e:b623:2d42] ([IPv6:2620:0:e50:7016:0:ff4e:b623:2d42]) (authenticated user=dbfunk bits=0) by smtp.engineering.uiowa.edu (8.14.9-icaen/smtp-MSA-1.7) with ESMTP id v4JJDLaO030091 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; (envelope-from ) Fri, 19 May 2017 14:13:21 -0500 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.6 at s-l101 Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 14:13:22 -0500 (CDT) From: David B Funk Reply-To: users@spamassassin.apache.org To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Somewhat OT: DMARC and this list In-Reply-To: <20170519143010.77fedd31@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com> Message-ID: References: <20170519143010.77fedd31@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.03 (LSU 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed archived-at: Fri, 19 May 2017 19:13:28 -0000 On Fri, 19 May 2017, Dianne Skoll wrote: > Hi, > > Tons of list traffic keeps getting quarantined because of DMARC. For > example, a recent message from David Jones : > > DMARC policy for domain ena.com suggests Rejection as > DMARC_POLICY_REJECT, but quarantined due to rule settings > > $ host -t txt _dmarc.ena.com > _dmarc.ena.com descriptive text "v=DMARC1\; p=reject\; sp=reject\; rua=mailto:dmarc@ena.net\;" > > (In this instance, we've overridden the DMARC policy and converted it > to quarantine instead of reject, so I was able to retrieve the email, but...) > > I'm pretty sure Mailman can do DMARC-munging. Can ezmlm do the equivalent > of Mailman's "ALLOW_FROM_IS_LIST" feature? > > Regards, > > Dianne. My read on this is that "@ena.com" is living dangerously. They publish SPF records and DMARC records (with p=reject) but do NOT DKIM sign their mail. In general it's dangerous to expect SPF to work thru a maillist or other forwarder. Often DKIM will but you cannot count on it (particularly if the list engages in Subject munging). If they're only going to use SPF then publishing a DMARC policy of "reject" is risky. See: https://dmarc.org/2017/03/can-i-use-dmarc-if-i-have-only-deployed-spf/ Please let me know if I'm misinterpreting the signs. Dave -- Dave Funk University of Iowa College of Engineering 319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527 #include Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{