mirror of
https://github.com/internetstandards/toolbox-wiki.git
synced 2024-11-21 18:41:36 +01:00
Update DMARC-how-to.md
This commit is contained in:
parent
8cd3cd6267
commit
be31b79c10
@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ Depending on your preferences and needs, you can determine the value of the conf
|
|||||||
Because this specific setup uses SpamAssassin for classifying e-mail to be SPAM or legitimate (HAM), the DMARC policy used is quarantine. This is done to prevent OpenDMARC from blocking the e-mail and, as a result, not enabling SpamAssassin to do its job.
|
Because this specific setup uses SpamAssassin for classifying e-mail to be SPAM or legitimate (HAM), the DMARC policy used is quarantine. This is done to prevent OpenDMARC from blocking the e-mail and, as a result, not enabling SpamAssassin to do its job.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Inbound e-mail traffic
|
## Inbound e-mail traffic
|
||||||
Ideally incoming e-mail is processed by making a single decision based on a collective evaluation of all relevant e-mail standards (SPF, DKIM, DMARC). Although this would be the most elegant way of processing incoming e-mail, most e-mail servers process e-mail standards in a sequential order. This should be taken into consideration when configuring your own e-mail environment; depending on a domain owner's preferences it is also possible to implement a "single decision" e-mail environment.
|
Ideally incoming e-mail is processed by making a **single decision** based on a collective evaluation of all relevant e-mail standards (SPF, DKIM, DMARC). Although this would be the most elegant way of processing incoming e-mail, most e-mail servers process e-mail standards in a sequential order. This should be taken into consideration when configuring your own e-mail environment; depending on a domain owner's preferences it is also possible to implement a "single decision" e-mail environment.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Thereafter, it is [stated in the DMARC RFC](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#section-10.1) that some receiver architectures might implement SPF in advance of any DMARC operations. This means that a "-" prefix on a sender's SPF mechanism, such as "-all", could cause that rejection to go into effect early in handling, causing message rejection before any DMARC processing takes place. While operators choosing to use "-all" should be aware of this, we advise to favor a DMARC policy over an SPF policy. As also [stated in the DMARC RFC](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#section-6.7), the final diposition of a message is always a matter of local policy. With this in mind we feel that operators should not configure SPF rejection to go into effect early in handling, and thus disregarding DMARC. At the cost of processing the entire message body, we advise to always evaluate all relevant standards before coming to a decision. If SPF fails, DKIM might still pass resulting in a satisfying DMARC evaluation.
|
Thereafter, it is [stated in the DMARC RFC](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#section-10.1) that some receiver architectures might implement SPF in advance of any DMARC operations. This means that a "-" prefix on a sender's SPF mechanism, such as "-all", could cause that rejection to go into effect early in handling, causing message rejection before any DMARC processing takes place. While operators choosing to use "-all" should be aware of this, we advise to favor a DMARC policy over an SPF policy. As also [stated in the DMARC RFC](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#section-6.7), the final diposition of a message is always a matter of local policy. With this in mind we feel that operators should not configure SPF rejection to go into effect early in handling, and thus disregarding DMARC. At the cost of processing the entire message body, we advise to always evaluate all relevant standards before coming to a decision. If SPF fails, DKIM might still pass resulting in a satisfying DMARC evaluation.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user