Am 17.09.2014 07:41, schrieb Robert Schetterer:
das stehts wuerde ich sagen, und nach meiner Auffassung ist dann ein reject nach deren policy und rfc voellig ok
Na ja, die Meldung war vom opendkim, und dass die Signatur fehlt wissen wir ja von Anfang an.
Bei Google sieht die gleiche Mail übrigens so aus (dmarc=pass):
Received: by 10.52.236.228 with SMTP id ux4csp1272414vdc; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:57:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.160.163 with SMTP id xl3mr17201869lbb.80.1410883049829; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:57:29 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: trackandtrace@dhl.com Received: from PPF01015.deutschepost.de (ppf01015.deutschepost.de. [149.239.48.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id od10si24950873lbc.20.2014.09.16.08.57.29 for ...@gmail.com; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:57:29 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of trackandtrace@dhl.com designates 149.239.48.15 as permitted sender) client-ip=149.239.48.15; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of trackandtrace@dhl.com designates 149.239.48.15 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=trackandtrace@dhl.com; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=dhl.com Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by PPF01015.deutschepost.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E8675229B for ...@gmail.com; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 17:57:29 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at deutschepost.de Received: from PPF01015.deutschepost.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (PPF01015.deutschepost.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5HRRUlzIkrPg for ...@gmail.com; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 17:57:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from DYN-S19092349 (unknown [160.58.107.18]) by PPF01015.deutschepost.de (Postfix) with ESMTP for ...@gmail.com; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 17:57:28 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 17:57:28 +0200 (CEST) From: trackandtrace@dhl.com To: ...@gmail.com Message-ID: 1325933392.60070139.1410883048989.JavaMail.dpagmk@PPF01015.deutschepost.de References: mkaTechnicalID="219685295" mkaContactReason="OB_SENDUNGSSTATUS_PUBLIC"