Comment 29 for bug 1589693

I too just noticed an email come in today (From: domain canonical.com) that failed DMARC on my server. I'm scratching my head as to why there is a DMARC record for canonical.com but no SPF or DKIM. DMARC is of course SPF OR DKIM (and that's an oversimplification as well, but...). So publishing a DMARC record without no SPF and no DKIM doesn't make any sense to me - it's guaranteed to fail every time (and yes I see there is a p=none in the policy which is why I accepted the mail...).

I also see over in the other bug:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/387321

There is a comment from 2012 saying that SPF records won't be added...

Plenty of folks in the comments above already echoing these concerns, so I will try to not repeat them. I'm certainly sympathetic to lack of resources/time to properly fix (and test) things like this. But it seems like a much more serious and closer look needs to be had at the email policies and configurations.

PS: Looks like ubuntu.com and launchpad.net (as well as bugs.launchpad.net) don't have any SPF either. The difference is they don't publish DMARC, so there's no contradiction (this only seems to be the case for canonical.com).