Git/email-toolbox-wiki
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/internetstandards/toolbox-wiki.git synced 2024-11-22 02:51:36 +01:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Update DMARC-how-to.md

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Dennis Baaten 2020-03-28 09:15:47 +01:00 committed by GitHub
parent 93000240d5
commit 6a3803a086
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
DMARC-how-to.md
View File

@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ DMARC addresses this problem and enables the owner of a domain to take explicit
* If these values do not align this could mean for example, that an attacker placed a valid DKIM signature header in an email with a "d=" value that points to a domain the attacker controls, allowing DKIM to pass while still spoofing the From address to the user. * If these values do not align this could mean for example, that an attacker placed a valid DKIM signature header in an email with a "d=" value that points to a domain the attacker controls, allowing DKIM to pass while still spoofing the From address to the user.
* Parked domain: “DMARC p=reject”. Make sure to include rua and ruf addresses, since this allows monitoring of possible abuse attempts. Implement additional records (SPF, DKIM, NullMX) if possible, see also our [Parked domain how-to](https://github.com/internetstandards/toolbox-wiki/blob/master/parked-domain-how-to.md). * Parked domain: “DMARC p=reject”. Make sure to include rua and ruf addresses, since this allows monitoring of possible abuse attempts. Implement additional records (SPF, DKIM, NullMX) if possible, see also our [Parked domain how-to](https://github.com/internetstandards/toolbox-wiki/blob/master/parked-domain-how-to.md).
* RFC 7489 [states](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#section-6.4) that the tags dmarc-version ("v=") and dmarc-request ("p=") should be on the first and second position of the DMARC record. The order of the other tags does not matter: "components other than dmarc-version and dmarc-request may appear in any order". * RFC 7489 [states](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#section-6.4) that the tags dmarc-version ("v=") and dmarc-request ("p=") should be on the first and second position of the DMARC record. The order of the other tags does not matter: "components other than dmarc-version and dmarc-request may appear in any order".
* [Errata 5440 of RFC 7489](https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7489) states that a semicolon should be included in the DMARC version tag. Correct: "v=DMARC1;". Incorrect: "v=DMARC1". * The verified [erratum 5440 of RFC 7489](https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7489) states that a semicolon should be included in the DMARC version tag. Correct: "v=DMARC1;". Incorrect: "v=DMARC1".
* When using office 365, the forwarding of calendar appointments from a DMARC projected domain fails. This is a known issue. Read more on the [Office 365 UserVoice forum](https://office365.uservoice.com/forums/264636-general/suggestions/34012756-forwarding-of-calendar-appointments-from-a-dmarc-p) and don't forget to submit your vote! * When using office 365, the forwarding of calendar appointments from a DMARC projected domain fails. This is a known issue. Read more on the [Office 365 UserVoice forum](https://office365.uservoice.com/forums/264636-general/suggestions/34012756-forwarding-of-calendar-appointments-from-a-dmarc-p) and don't forget to submit your vote!
* There is a workaround: Forward the appointment as an "iCalendar file" or as an attachment. * There is a workaround: Forward the appointment as an "iCalendar file" or as an attachment.
* When processing incoming mail we advise to favor a DMARC policy over an SPF policy. Do not configure SPF rejection to go into effect early in handling, but take full advantage of the enhancements DMARC is offering. A message might still pass based on DKIM. * When processing incoming mail we advise to favor a DMARC policy over an SPF policy. Do not configure SPF rejection to go into effect early in handling, but take full advantage of the enhancements DMARC is offering. A message might still pass based on DKIM.