Re: [dmarc-ietf] no DMARC result for DKIM testing and policy

[Benny Pedersen <[e-mail]>]

John Levine skrev den 2024-03-22 03:52:
> According to Mark Alley  <[e-mail]>:
>>> I don't feel particularly strongly about this, but I can see people 
>>> thinking there's some correlation between DKIM testing and DMARC
>> testing.  It's not completely illogical, so it might be better to be 
>> explicit.
>>> Scott K
>> 
>> Agreed as well. It's worth calling out, IMO.
> 
> I disagree.  DMARC is a decade old and I am not aware that anyone, 
> ever, has had problems due
> to confusion about DMARC and DKIM test flags.  This document is already 
> too long and too late.
> 
> Unless there is an actual problem to solve here, let's close the issue 
> and finish up.

why is dkim fail here

X-Spam-Status	No, score=-1.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 
tests=[AUTHRES_DKIM_FAIL=0.5, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.372, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, 
DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, 
HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-2, 
RCVD_IN_ANONMAILS=1.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, 
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=1.3, SPF_PASS=-0.1] 
autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results	mx.junc.eu (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit 
key) header.d=ietf.org header.b="Xr+FwPZI"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) 
header.d=ietf.org header.b="Xr+FwPZI"; dkim=fail (2048-bit key) 
reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=iecc.com 
header.b="qTXLFk6y"; dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has 
been altered)" header.d=taugh.com header.b="IB1/7fRP"
Authentication-Results	ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit 
key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=iecc.com 
header.b="qTXLFk6y"; dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has 
been altered)" header.d=taugh.com header.b="IB1/7fRP"

its already dkim fail at delivery to amsl ?

let me see if eitf still breaks my dkim :=)