Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal
Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> Thu, 15 June 2023 21:25 UTC
Return-Path: <kivinen@iki.fi>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CAE8C151525 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 14:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iki.fi
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eNUnj6qoAQQS for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 14:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lahtoruutu.iki.fi (lahtoruutu.iki.fi [IPv6:2a0b:5c81:1c1::37]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C42AFC151532 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 14:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fireball.acr.fi (fireball.kivinen.iki.fi [IPv6:2001:1bc8:100d::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kivinen@iki.fi) by lahtoruutu.iki.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4QhwLx37V4z49PsD; Fri, 16 Jun 2023 00:25:45 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iki.fi; s=lahtoruutu; t=1686864345; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=aFn0ZoffkahIWjQuurIc45TG4x1kPFdn93918xyuRx8=; b=bPdYKnkZLcOMvhsxCvCdjkJfBcDDUXd8eI29c6ANUg0GwFU1HxVMFRR83th0OBFUoctvgG 9Fve513HcEo2BkHHBk6EEoxHQlhYnMz18yuLMEfn9/Takg649rBM2P2ZlG1kX3bB6kQvTx MBoC1w7Oac/spyWzNR0LVS5Nw4ebQvVyo8+98xnTmqTeNNW6ikfctNM7Z/QmF3x2Lz2MIR XDeYtAzU/ycKs+gC3g5TKsnJlVjpucxt4wXiAhc0MoVAFozIw/zyQ4XqUuGtTicwhAb/jE j8RCibalql14hFqOyxRGXtrInxsaFdXKrKLo4ghkzwuPUtC15/ybZ5/SPFOTjw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iki.fi; s=lahtoruutu; t=1686864345; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=aFn0ZoffkahIWjQuurIc45TG4x1kPFdn93918xyuRx8=; b=foXUE73/PN68DSPA0UwWAEHJ/KnuvzWIn1S1AARHXC19FxqKenZ6HJC7bT8wFvuScx6/s6 od1Jk+7KJaiEe2vUqo4Z2XsS6D1dWqeZA81jClZizDqE5+gzbamNYFe2I1ZJvlqS2iGcsO J9c6K9VC2721J2cGZBRV9boAnGhRTYr9PAbc9vIC0jYyYJcPw2ZkDkKJFmb22e+k8O3I08 nI+uouiBQXPpDa9EWLGV1G+ctVVXjjnk1rsUsm8D51jUaqSYikGdm+E9absQcUrdSXxNwa vuRhRWTJNILWnEDHMcpSEt1Ki0dK2MvMyVjDhgy2/kvXctsDJ67G9FrqyAaCVw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; ORIGINATING; auth=pass smtp.auth=kivinen@iki.fi smtp.mailfrom=kivinen@iki.fi
ARC-Seal: i=1; s=lahtoruutu; d=iki.fi; t=1686864345; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=r9rKHrlPq6d4U0bk/BmRm1Ghh25Or77T9ojW4Am1AVuoOIxATA/b2/hf9CMBep8W1UpUIC tC9oOauyzBvrg9eHhaE6vhZc8LQ3dBdehkcfHPTdbDCEEcL5W9Cr5yy6h/uxL/48d5Zw61 S1dlunfUH2gIe1ZEoKYhzQBG+nJOM2feoyRu7w9rYLSM89vUHP1shioj2k+Igt4+/5pvmu Nb9W8Tr/HE/d/xY8H8aKJap6GdmIqVEYuaqTvchNkpU1pjGM0d+zS+UhgGOWZXVlnaqdKb iYzGAMajHbpeRbHYDsRCngzUEsqT24VjGsIKkent2DKH4lek8nH+14LxM/bQ6g==
Received: by fireball.acr.fi (Postfix, from userid 15204) id 30B5425C1240; Fri, 16 Jun 2023 00:25:44 +0300 (EEST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <25739.33240.127804.524371@fireball.acr.fi>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 00:25:44 +0300
From: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>, dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <25739.5435.550786.601699@fireball.acr.fi>
References: <30BB83B2-B454-41B8-992B-8E2569802D9C@1und1.de> <D225D7FC-C570-4B63-A694-9F16DB1F33E1@kitterman.com> <CALaySJKwuOK-81dW2H9dtURxa5mLQDUNo+MWcs+Hho8N+yP9qg@mail.gmail.com> <2817813.dRqVH37e0G@localhost> <CALaySJJbPFBAV_7mZaARYWuMzuX+74r2Cm0jD+z92_iuFRn_MQ@mail.gmail.com> <25736.57534.195344.782189@fireball.acr.fi> <1ec42959-977a-9ce0-907a-83a5eb2b6ef2@tana.it> <25739.5435.550786.601699@fireball.acr.fi>
X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 26.3 (x86_64--netbsd)
X-Edit-Time: 12 min
X-Total-Time: 12 min
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/to6K8nQA2VE9obPv4d47arXElHk>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 21:25:52 -0000
Tero Kivinen writes: > > What are those 0.75%, some 30k SPF - DKIM messages? Are there > > cases of DKIM random failure salvaged by SPF? > > My current analysis script does not try to calculate that, I would > need to need to add that step there and rerun the script. If I > understand correctly you would like to see cases where if there is > both SPF and DKIM, the cases where the both, only one, or neither > passed, and how many of those cases would be where dkim=fail, but > spf=pass? I rerun the statistics and yes, there is 0.84% cases where dkim failed, but spf returned eithe pass, softfail or neutral. There was also 1.12% cases where spf returned permerror but dkim returned pass, and 1.26% cases where dkim returned pass and spf returned fail, or softfail. There is of course much bigger part of emails where there was no dkim, but there was spf that passed (7.03%) or softfailed (1.08%). Here are the actual numbers for DKIM and SPF result combinations: DKIM & SPF combinations =========================================== 78.62% 3133749 dkim=pass,spf=pass 7.03% 280239 dkim=none,spf=pass 4.68% 186634 dkim=pass,spf=none 3.85% 153543 dkim=none,spf=none 1.12% 44543 dkim=pass,spf=permerror 1.08% 43212 dkim=none,spf=softfail 0.82% 32821 dkim=fail,spf=pass 0.78% 30953 dkim=pass,spf=softfail 0.61% 24221 dkim=none,spf=fail 0.48% 19329 dkim=pass,spf=fail 0.43% 17120 dkim=none,spf=neutral 0.24% 9612 dkim=fail,spf=none 0.06% 2320 dkim=none,spf=permerror 0.06% 2214 dkim=pass,spf=neutral 0.04% 1712 dkim=none,spf=temperror 0.02% 995 dkim=fail,spf=fail 0.02% 924 dkim=fail,spf=softfail 0.02% 669 dkim=temperror,spf=pass 0.01% 360 dkim=missing,spf=missing 0.00% 199 dkim=temperror,spf=temperror 0.00% 196 dkim=fail,spf=neutral 0.00% 144 dkim=missing,spf=none 0.00% 119 dkim=pass,spf=temperror 0.00% 99 dkim=missing,spf=pass 0.00% 50 dkim=fail,spf=permerror 0.00% 38 dkim=missing,spf=softfail 0.00% 14 dkim=temperror,spf=none 0.00% 10 dkim=temperror,spf=softfail 0.00% 7 dkim=missing,spf=fail 0.00% 6 dkim=fail,spf=temperror 0.00% 6 dkim=missing,spf=neutral 0.00% 1 dkim=temperror,spf=fail 0.00% 1 dkim=missing,spf=temperror I.e. 78.64% of time both DKIM and SPF passed. I also calculated statistics for all DKIM, SPF, DMARC, and ARC combinations, but there were so many of them that I do not include the full list here but here is top 30 from that list: Protocol combinations ============================================================ 37.74% 1504477 dkim=pass,spf=pass,dmarc=missing,arc=missing 25.37% 1011277 dkim=pass,spf=pass,dmarc=pass,arc=missing 10.96% 436838 dkim=pass,spf=pass,dmarc=none,arc=missing 3.46% 138083 dkim=none,spf=pass,dmarc=missing,arc=missing 2.15% 85799 dkim=pass,spf=none,dmarc=missing,arc=missing 2.00% 79739 dkim=pass,spf=none,dmarc=pass,arc=missing 1.96% 78279 dkim=none,spf=none,dmarc=missing,arc=missing 1.64% 65205 dkim=none,spf=pass,dmarc=none,arc=missing 1.60% 63758 dkim=pass,spf=pass,dmarc=missing,arc=pass 1.54% 61579 dkim=none,spf=pass,dmarc=pass,arc=missing 1.16% 46309 dkim=pass,spf=pass,dmarc=pass,arc=pass 1.09% 43529 dkim=none,spf=none,dmarc=fail,arc=missing 0.92% 36478 dkim=pass,spf=pass,dmarc=fail,arc=missing 0.79% 31298 dkim=none,spf=none,dmarc=none,arc=missing 0.56% 22504 dkim=none,spf=softfail,dmarc=missing,arc=missing 0.56% 22123 dkim=pass,spf=permerror,dmarc=missing,arc=missing 0.55% 21973 dkim=pass,spf=pass,dmarc=none,arc=pass 0.40% 15760 dkim=fail,spf=pass,dmarc=missing,arc=missing 0.37% 14855 dkim=none,spf=softfail,dmarc=fail,arc=missing 0.37% 14716 dkim=pass,spf=softfail,dmarc=missing,arc=missing 0.34% 13576 dkim=none,spf=fail,dmarc=missing,arc=missing 0.32% 12745 dkim=pass,spf=permerror,dmarc=none,arc=missing 0.31% 12348 dkim=pass,spf=softfail,dmarc=pass,arc=missing 0.26% 10290 dkim=none,spf=neutral,dmarc=missing,arc=missing 0.24% 9657 dkim=pass,spf=permerror,dmarc=pass,arc=missing 0.23% 9367 dkim=pass,spf=fail,dmarc=missing,arc=missing 0.20% 8121 dkim=pass,spf=fail,dmarc=pass,arc=missing 0.20% 7785 dkim=fail,spf=pass,dmarc=none,arc=missing 0.17% 6719 dkim=pass,spf=none,dmarc=missing,arc=pass 0.16% 6248 dkim=none,spf=pass,dmarc=fail,arc=missing So 37% emails had dkim and spf pass, but no dmarc. 25.37% had also dmarc. -- kivinen@iki.fi
- [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tobias Herkula
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tobias Herkula
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tobias Herkula
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Benny Pedersen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] version bump to DMARC2 John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Brotman, Alex
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] version bump to DMARC2 Emil Gustafsson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] version bump to DMARC2 Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Errors in the tree walk, was ver… Alessandro Vesely
- [dmarc-ietf] Version bump: was DMARC2 & SPF Depen… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Version bump: was DMARC2 & SPF D… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Version bump: was DMARC2 & SPF D… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Version bump: was DMARC2 & SPF D… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Jesse Thompson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump Richard Clayton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Richard Clayton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Version bump: was DMARC2 & SPF D… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] version bump to DMARC2 Emil Gustafsson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tero Kivinen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Richard Clayton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tero Kivinen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tero Kivinen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tero Kivinen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Sebastiaan de Vos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Sebastiaan de Vos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Michael Kliewe
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Jan Dušátko
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Ken Simpson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Jan Dušátko
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Ken Simpson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Patrick Ben Koetter
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Benny Pedersen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Wei Chuang
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal David Verdin
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tobias Herkula
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Sebastiaan de Vos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Sebastiaan de Vos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Sebastiaan de Vos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Ken Simpson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Emil Gustafsson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Emanuel Schorsch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Emanuel Schorsch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Emanuel Schorsch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Jan Dušátko
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Florian.Kunkel
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Jan Dušátko
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Tobias Herkula
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Emanuel Schorsch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Tero Kivinen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Jan Dušátko
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Tero Kivinen
- [dmarc-ietf] Why does DKIM fail when SPF succeeds… Matthäus Wander
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Why does DKIM fail when SPF succ… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Why does DKIM fail when SPF succ… Matthäus Wander
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Neil Anuskiewicz
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Why does DKIM fail when SPF succ… OLIVIER HUREAU
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Why does DKIM fail when SPF succ… Matthäus Wander