You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We use the Valimail product for DMARC which their spf macro uses softfail, ~all, sample below. We are receiving "Not Recommended -5" on our domains and subdomains.
There are other companies using their product for DMARC eg. Uber.com
I've attached their document as to why they use softfail instead of hardfail and would like the SPF area for "Set up SPF records to prevent spoofing" to consider not marking these as needing improvement and instead as ok.
@amcl61 cheers for the article. IMO the advice is only really valid in instances where DMARC is deployed and in some level of enforcement (which still sucks how many organizations are not here yet).
Possibly what we could do here is consider SPF soft-fail informational in instances of a p=reject/p=quarantine DMARC policy on the matching domain. The only concern here that i have is instances of subdomains this is going to become a bit complicated (SPF needs explicit records on the subdomain where DMARC falls back down the chain in absence of an explicit record at the subdomain).
Hello,
We use the Valimail product for DMARC which their spf macro uses softfail, ~all, sample below. We are receiving "Not Recommended -5" on our domains and subdomains.
v=spf1 include:%{i}._ip.%{h}._ehlo.%{d}._spf.vali.email ~all
There are other companies using their product for DMARC eg. Uber.com
I've attached their document as to why they use softfail instead of hardfail and would like the SPF area for "Set up SPF records to prevent spoofing" to consider not marking these as needing improvement and instead as ok.
https://support.valimail.com/support/solutions/articles/48001197890-why-valimail-uses-an-spf-soft-fail-and-not-a-hard-fail
Thank you,
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: