Gmail shows authentication data to the recipient

Yesterday Gmail rolled out some changes to their interface. One of the changes is that they are now showing end users authentication results in the user screen.
It’s really the next step in email authentication, showing the results to the end user.
So how does Google do this? Google is checking both SPF and DKIM. If mail is authenticated and the authentication matches the from address then they display the email as:
mail from steve to me
If we click on “details” for that message, we find more specific information.
full details of message showing signing domain and spf domainIn this case the mail went through our outgoing mailserver to gmail.
Mailed-by indicates that the message passed SPF and that the IP address is a valid source of mail from wordtothewise.com.
Signed-by shows the domain in the DKIM d=. In this case, we signed with the subdomain dt.wordtothewise.com. That’s what happens when you sign using the domain in the From address (or a subdomain of it).
For a lot of bulk senders, though, their mail is signed using their ESP’s domain instead.  In that case Gmail shows who signed the mail as well as the from address.

And when we click on “details” for that message we see:
3rd party signature detailsThis is an email from a sender using Madmimi as an ESP. Madmimi is handling both the SPF authentication and the DKIM authentication.
As an aside, this particular  sender has a high enough reputation that Gmail is offering me an unsubscribe option in their interface.
Gmail is distinguishing between first party and third party signatures in authentication. If the mail is authenticated, but the authentication appears to be handled by a separate entity, then Gmail is alerting recipients to that fact.
What does this mean for bulk senders?
For senders that are signing with a domain that matches their From: domain, there is no change. Recipients will not see any mention of your ESP in the headers.
However, if you are using an ESP that is signing your mail with a domain they own, then your recipients will see that information displayed in the email interface. If you don’t want this to be displayed by Gmail, then you will need to move to first party signing. Talk to your ESP about this. If they’re unsure of how to manage it, you can point them to DKIM Core for an Email Service Provider.
Gmail blogpost about the changes
Gmail help page about authentication results

URL Shortening and Email
Holomaxx doubles down

Related Posts

DKIM "i=" vs "d=" and Reputation

This really should be part seven of a twelve part series or some such as it deals with an aspect of DKIM that’s really important, but is way down in the details of implementation. (dkim.org is a reasonable place to start for a general overview of DKIM).
There’s an apparently endless thread on the DKIM-SSP spec development mailing list at the moment about the differences between two fields in a DKIM signature that could be used to tie a senders reputation to. Several ESP delivery folks asked me to explain what everyone was talking about, and this post is a first cut at that.
“i=” vs “d=”
There are two possible fields in a DKIM signature that could be used to identify the sender of a message, and so to tie a sender history and reputation record to. They are the so-called “i=” and “d=” field, from the syntax used to include them in the signature.

Read More

Authentication and phishing

Yahoo announced today that they are releasing the Yahoo! Mail Anti-Phishing Platform (YMAP) that will help protect their users from phishing. They have a similar project in place for eBay and PayPal mail, but this will extend to a broader range of companies.

Read More

Who can you trust?

I’ve been recently dealing with a client who is looking at implementing authentication on their domains. He’s done a lot of background research into the schemes and has a relatively firm grasp on the issue. At this point we’re working out what policies he wants to set and how to correctly implement those policies.
His questions were well informed for the most part. A few of them were completely out of left field, so I asked him for some of his references. One of those references was the EEC Email Authentication Whitepaper.
My client was doing the best he could to inform himself and relies on industry groups like the EEC to provide him with accurate information. In this case, their information was incomplete and incorrect.
We all have our perspectives and biases (yes, even me!) but there are objective facts that can be independently verified. For instance, the EEC Authentication whitepaper claimed that Yahoo requires DKIM signing for access to their whitelist program. This is incorrect, a sender does not have to sign with DKIM in order to apply for the Yahoo whitelist program. A bulk sender does have to sign with DKIM for a Y! FBL, but ISPs are given access to an IP based FBL by Yahoo. I am shocked that none of the experts that contributed to the document caught that error.
Independent verification is one reason I publish the Delivery Wiki. It’s a resource for everyone and a way to share my knowledge and thought processes. But other experts can “check my work” as it were and provide corrections if my information is outdated or faulty. All too often, senders end up blaming delivery problems on evil spirits, or using “dear” in the subject line or using too much pink in the design.
Delivery isn’t that esoteric or difficult if you have a clear understanding of the policy and technical decisions at a range of ESPs and ISPs, the history and reasoning behind those decisions, and enough experience to predict the implications when they collide.
Many senders do face delivery challenges and there is considerable demand for delivery experts to provide delivery facts. That niche has been filled by a mix of people, of all levels of experience, expertise and technical knowledge, leading to the difficult task of working out which of those “experts” are experts, and which of those “facts” are facts.

Read More