Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
HTML CSS JAVASCRIPT SQL PYTHON PHP BOOTSTRAP JAVA JQUERY R React Kotlin
 

SPF, DKIM and DMARC all set but dmarc-reports keep saying the opposite

Tags:

email

debian

dmarc

dkim

spf

I'm losing my mind (again) on something about e-mails.

I have a Kimsufi/OVH (Debian Wheezy 7.10) server. I have postfix and dovecot all set.

My main domain/hostname is mywebsite.fr, and i'm using mywebsite.fr set on mywebsite.fr.

I set spf, dkim and dmarc entries in dns zones for both of domains. From contact[at]mywebsite[dot]fr and no-reply[at]mywebsite[dot]fr, all the tests I ran are good :

1) [email protected]

The Port25 Solutions, Inc. team

==========================================================
 Summary of Results
==========================================================
SPF check:          pass
DomainKeys check:   neutral
DKIM check:         pass
SpamAssassin check: ham

==========================================================
Details:
==========================================================

HELO hostname:  mywebsite.fr
Source IP:      91.121.166.194
mail-from:      [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------
SPF check details:
----------------------------------------------------------
Result:         pass
ID(s) verified: [email protected]
DNS record(s):
    mywebsite.fr. SPF (no records)
    mywebsite.fr. 6055 IN TXT "v=spf1 a mx include:mx.ovh.com ~all"
    mywebsite.fr. 6054 IN A 91.121.166.194

----------------------------------------------------------
DomainKeys check details:
----------------------------------------------------------
Result:         neutral (message not signed)
ID(s) verified: [email protected]
DNS record(s):

----------------------------------------------------------
DKIM check details:
----------------------------------------------------------
Result:         pass (matches From: [email protected])
ID(s) verified: header.d=mywebsite.fr

2) dmarcian.com

https://dmarcian.com/dmarc-inspector/mywebsite.fr
All seems good

3) dkimvalidator.com

DKIM Information:

DKIM Signature

Message contains this DKIM Signature:
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mywebsite.fr;
    s=mail; t=1491673268;
    bh=g3zLYH4xKxcPrHOD18z9YfpQcnk/GaJedfustWU5uGs=;
    h=Date:From:To:Subject:From;
    b=CScyX9ZvWCDL6FGLroXZi/8dFiWmgPbKwcTuSZqPuCHBOR4tv4QdGzxgZ3acWf6AP
     AwAt3Y2h+9IHeayu8mT2rl2Bz3E3XbMC6waEHoc645sAOq1nV9l8hAuw73hm6YsvXU
     QEAgcDIaD8b5fAXoX99rGkSfD6Rx5ygeuJOs0MzZcxnOzaJM+6mvOzusep4PRv0XvG
     eEJYYwL2sNd0qEJSLJ666fhvE781qtwnWaUewlceSgek5bnJ1DVEOsLkcl3uwTabau
     PsLZm9SPuqsc+aDRTTNNRKuI2noO1/w3M6XWfZxpYPIeoxwNnflWxP0s9O6+UbhsCJ
     PJbZeYVATVFKYKjFJlbwAqPMMmJAiqSWzsXvT06/P/Qw70nT5Q9qK1FI8Uu9NRFhWe
     g+35wx03zNG5OMgKzKsv9qH06qccBsbfhHXKm63YkxLDhO+2AtdicdWqrMlZQap7V0
     CC4VyTCNLZdOASWdLJdh8JDsY2TXNU/Pcpxw0uSf0BigY/0q3qj5O7GRzzSLG1rKz0
     +HpvDql/PpsscXt16URaOtO7/rZ6H3EsS1ZkutO5udiwJvoZulraMbI8sQQghR3Yyw
     OZqDardodYdVo1tHzTPQ4MJTEKI+2IO4ulCj7/kJ109xpTYo8+8x3I7Z5Bhmnyui7j
     TIxRT8MCD1sRUOoP7mD/7Pb0=


Signature Information:
v= Version:         1
a= Algorithm:       rsa-sha256
c= Method:          relaxed/relaxed
d= Domain:          mywebsite.fr
s= Selector:        mail
q= Protocol:        
bh=                 g3zLYH4xKxcPrHOD18z9YfpQcnk/GaJedfustWU5uGs=
h= Signed Headers:  Date:From:To:Subject:From
b= Data:            CScyX9ZvWCDL6FGLroXZi/8dFiWmgPbKwcTuSZqPuCHBOR4tv4QdGzxgZ3acWf6AP
     AwAt3Y2h+9IHeayu8mT2rl2Bz3E3XbMC6waEHoc645sAOq1nV9l8hAuw73hm6YsvXU
     QEAgcDIaD8b5fAXoX99rGkSfD6Rx5ygeuJOs0MzZcxnOzaJM+6mvOzusep4PRv0XvG
     eEJYYwL2sNd0qEJSLJ666fhvE781qtwnWaUewlceSgek5bnJ1DVEOsLkcl3uwTabau
     PsLZm9SPuqsc+aDRTTNNRKuI2noO1/w3M6XWfZxpYPIeoxwNnflWxP0s9O6+UbhsCJ
     PJbZeYVATVFKYKjFJlbwAqPMMmJAiqSWzsXvT06/P/Qw70nT5Q9qK1FI8Uu9NRFhWe
     g+35wx03zNG5OMgKzKsv9qH06qccBsbfhHXKm63YkxLDhO+2AtdicdWqrMlZQap7V0
     CC4VyTCNLZdOASWdLJdh8JDsY2TXNU/Pcpxw0uSf0BigY/0q3qj5O7GRzzSLG1rKz0
     +HpvDql/PpsscXt16URaOtO7/rZ6H3EsS1ZkutO5udiwJvoZulraMbI8sQQghR3Yyw
     OZqDardodYdVo1tHzTPQ4MJTEKI+2IO4ulCj7/kJ109xpTYo8+8x3I7Z5Bhmnyui7j
     TIxRT8MCD1sRUOoP7mD/7Pb0=
Public Key DNS Lookup

Building DNS Query for mail._domainkey.mywebsite.fr
Retrieved this publickey from DNS: v=DKIM1; k=rsa;p=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
Validating Signature

result = pass
Details: 

SPF Information:

Using this information that I obtained from the headers

Helo Address = mywebsite.fr
From Address = [email protected]
From IP      = 91.121.166.194
SPF Record Lookup

Looking up TXT SPF record for mywebsite.fr
Found the following namesevers for mywebsite.fr: ns.kimsufi.com nsXXXXXX.ip-91-XXX-166.eu
Retrieved this SPF Record: zone updated 20170408 (TTL = 46739)
using authoritative server (ns.kimsufi.com) directly for SPF Check
Result: pass (Mechanism 'a' matched)

Result code: pass
Local Explanation: mywebsite.fr: 91.121.166.194 is authorized to use '[email protected]' in 'mfrom' identity (mechanism 'a' matched)
spf_header = Received-SPF: pass (mywebsite.fr: 91.121.166.194 is authorized to use '[email protected]' in 'mfrom' identity (mechanism 'a' matched)) receiver=ip-172-31-3-128.us-west-1.compute.internal; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from="[email protected]"; helo=mywebsite.fr; client-ip=91.121.166.194

Etc, etc, etc.

All seems good and all the mail-testers i'm sending an e-mails are saying "10/10, you're good to go buddy".

The problem is, I receive dmarc-reports and they are not good. For example, last in date from yahoo :

<?xml version="1.0"?>   
<feedback>  
  <report_metadata> 
    <org_name>Yahoo! Inc.</org_name>    
    <email>[email protected]</email>   
    <report_id>1491615950.716847</report_id>    
    <date_range>    
      <begin>1491523200</begin> 
      <end>1491609599 </end>    
    </date_range>   
  </report_metadata>    
  <policy_published>    
    <domain>mywebsite.fr</domain>   
    <adkim>r</adkim>    
    <aspf>r</aspf>  
    <p>none</p> 
    <pct>100</pct>  
  </policy_published>   
  <record>  
    <row>   
      <source_ip>91.121.166.194</source_ip> 
      <count>1</count>  
      <policy_evaluated>    
        <disposition>none</disposition> 
        <dkim>fail</dkim>   
        <spf>fail</spf> 
      </policy_evaluated>   
    </row>  
    <identifiers>   
      <header_from>mywebsite.fr</header_from>   
    </identifiers>  
    <auth_results>  
      <dkim>    
        <domain>mywebsite.fr</domain>   
        <result>permerror</result>  
      </dkim>   
      <spf> 
        <domain>mywebsite.fr</domain>   
        <result>pass</result>   
      </spf>    
    </auth_results> 
  </record> 
</feedback>

And last in date from google.com :

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<feedback>
  <report_metadata>
    <org_name>google.com</org_name>
    <email>[email protected]</email>
    <extra_contact_info>https://support.google.com/a/answer/2466580</extra_contact_info>
    <report_id>14868783784049997701</report_id>
    <date_range>
      <begin>1491523200</begin>
      <end>1491609599</end>
    </date_range>
  </report_metadata>
  <policy_published>
    <domain>mywebsite.fr</domain>
    <adkim>r</adkim>
    <aspf>r</aspf>
    <p>none</p>
    <sp>none</sp>
    <pct>100</pct>
  </policy_published>
  <record>
    <row>
      <source_ip>2001:41d0:1:e7c2::1</source_ip>
      <count>1</count>
      <policy_evaluated>
        <disposition>none</disposition>
        <dkim>fail</dkim>
        <spf>fail</spf>
      </policy_evaluated>
    </row>
    <identifiers>
      <header_from>mywebsite.fr</header_from>
    </identifiers>
    <auth_results>
      <dkim>
        <domain>mywebsite.fr</domain>
        <result>fail</result>
        <selector>mail</selector>
      </dkim>
      <spf>
        <domain>mywebsite.fr</domain>
        <result>softfail</result>
      </spf>
    </auth_results>
  </record>
  <record>
    <row>
      <source_ip>2001:41d0:1:e7c2::1</source_ip>
      <count>1</count>
      <policy_evaluated>
        <disposition>none</disposition>
        <dkim>pass</dkim>
        <spf>fail</spf>
      </policy_evaluated>
    </row>
    <identifiers>
      <header_from>mywebsite.fr</header_from>
    </identifiers>
    <auth_results>
      <dkim>
        <domain>mywebsite.fr</domain>
        <result>pass</result>
        <selector>mail</selector>
      </dkim>
      <spf>
        <domain>mywebsite.fr</domain>
        <result>pass</result>
      </spf>
    </auth_results>
  </record>
</feedback>

I'm lost, I don't know what to do more than is already set. Don't hesitate ask me more informations, if it can help. Thx...

like image 586
Vae Avatar asked Oct 17 '22 14:10

Vae

2 Answers

Anyway, looking over your results from those other testers, it looks like you're using a 4096 DKIM, which produces key sizes over 512 bytes. Drop your DKIM size back down to 2048 and I think your issues will go away with the DKIM Failures. I seen numerous instances where large key sizes cause DKIM Failures.

Also the results from google show an ipv6 address as the source IP, I have a feeling Google might be bugged, that is might not be doing the SPF Lookup correctly concerning a and aaaa records, you should add ip6:2001:41d0:1:e7c2::1 to your SPF and see if that resolves the SPF Failures at Google.

In theory, When an ESP receives and ipv6 IP they should look up the aaaa record for SPF if a is specified as a mechanism and a if IPv4 is specified"

like image 179
Henry Avatar answered Oct 21 '22 03:10

Henry

The SPF problem you're seeing is an alignment problem. SPF only counts for DMARC when the Return-Path domain and the Header From domain are on the same organizational domain. In somewhat oversimplified terms, they need to be the same or have a common parent domain that isn't a TLD.

From the reports, you can see that your Return-Path domain (used for SPF) is vaeserveur.fr while the header from domain is calendridel.fr. In this case, it doesn't matter that SPF yields a pass - that pass value won't be used for DMARC. See the discussion here - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7489#section-3.1

As for DKIM, the other answer is on point. Verifiers don't generally support 4096 bit keys, and they don't actually have to according to the RFC - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6376#section-3.3.3

like image 38
Peter Goldstein Avatar answered Oct 21 '22 05:10

Peter Goldstein
Sign in to Comment

Related questions

Getting "not supported calendar message.ics" attachment with outlook email invite from Python
how to confirm email source
How to verify a mail has been sent when using Zend_Mail?

Donate For Us

If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!