gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss

Re: Last erratum last call

Frank Ellermann — 2008-09-07T12:19:00

[Trimmed fwd from the devel list where it got no reply]: [...] Yes, as far as possible. Clearly an issue that needs a better fix than the "last erratum" at some point in time. More like KISS than appropriate. And your concern was that some implementations don't return a PemError, but ignore the directive. I've split the text in "variant 1" (as it was), adding your text as "variant 2". "Variant 2" consists of two parts, the forward pointer to section 8 (macros) is replaced by a forward pointer to section 4.8 (domain-spec). The second part of "variant 2" is a new paragraph to be inserted at the end of section 4.8. One statement in your proposal IMO needs some wordsmithing before a new consensus poll: ? Some implementations choose to treat as a no-match ? mechanisms, and ignore modifiers, with such names, ? whereas others throw a "PermError" exception. | Some implementations treat such situations as "no | match", i.e. ignore the directive, whereas others | throw a "PermError" exception. Is that what you mean ? Simply edit it on the wiki as it should be. While you are at it, there are two other points: + Note: Historically, this document has made no + provisions for how to handle s, or + macro-expansions thereof, that are syntactically + invalid per [RFC1035] "Historically, this document has made" sounds odd in an erratum supposed to be a part of what the document really does. IOW, it sounds like text for a 4408bis. How about "This document does not exactly specify how to handle" ... ? After all we are going to say one thing, either "no match" or "PermError", in the next statement. Great. As we are clear about what we want, only the precise way how to say it is still open, you could publish it now. [...] The "quoted string" + "quoted pair" business will be a bit more complex, it could go into an update of the test suite when we have that clear. Using upper case %{S} in a can also have odd effects, especially in conjunction with the "last" erratum limit 63: mail from: <123...25< at >789...50.example.com> "v=spf1 exists:%{S} ?all" .example (8) + .com (4) + 25 + < at > (1) + 24 => 62. But if the < at > is URL encoded for an upper case S it is 64. Frank

Re: Sender-id records

Frank Ellermann — 2008-09-07T12:07:18

Please inform us if you figure this out. I consider to deprecate this zoo: Either v=spf1 or spf2.0/pra, aything else only muddies the water. Four records (TXT+SPF, SPF+PRA) are bad enough for folks wishing to test PRA. IMHO nobody needs v=spf1 op=pra or spf2.0/mfrom,pra or spf2.0/pra,mfrom shorthands, it's only confusing. Frank

New tool(s)

Frank Ellermann — 2008-09-07T09:31:37

Hi, for info, Dave B moved his "dig" form to a new server, and added an SPF check page while at it, check it out: Frank

Sender-id records

Stuart D. Gathman — 2008-09-05T19:29:33

I am considering checking for spf2.0/mfrom records when there is no v=spf1 record. Does anyone have stats on whether any of these actually exist? (I do not plan to check PRA given patent issues and general uselessness of doing so.) If both v=spf1 and spf2.0/mfrom records exist, then I will give the v=spf1 record precedence. I don't think this is addressed in either spec.

SPF Mail Summary Report

2008-08-24T05:00:03

iMail News Gateway Server v3.1 (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc. Mail Forum Statistics Date Range : 17 Aug 2008 - 21 Aug 2008 Report Date: 24 Aug 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Summary: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Forums : 2 Total Messages : 12 Total Participants : 6 Total Vendor Postings : 0 Total Mail/No Replies : 4 (33%) 6+ Days Old : 3 4+ Days Old: 0 2+ Days Old : 1 1 Day Old : 0 Busiest Posting Hour : 1am (3 msgs) Busiest Posting Day : Sunday (6 msgs) +-[ Hourly Posting Pattern ]----------------------+ | * | | * | | * | | * | | * * * | | * * * | | * * * | | * * * * * * * * | | * * * * * * * * | | * * * * * * * * | +------------ AM ---------|-------- PM -----------+ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-[ Daily Posting Pattern ]---------+ | * | | * | | * | | * | | * * | | * * | | * * | | * * | | * * | | * * * * | +-----------------------------------+ Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Top 10 Posters -------------- ( 6 msgs) Julian Mehnle ( 2 msgs) Frank Ellermann ( 1 msgs) Beach, Richard ( 1 msgs) Rich Johnson ( 1 msgs) servitude ( 1 msgs) spf-discuss< at >winserver.com Top Forums ---------- ( 12 msgs) spf-discuss ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Forum Summary: spf-discuss ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Messages : 12 Participants : 6 Vendor Postings : 0 Mail/No Replies : 4 (33%) 6+ Days Old : 3 4+ Days Old: 0 2+ Days Old : 1 1 Day Old : 0 Top Poster : (6 msgs) Julian Mehnle Peak Post Hour : (3 msgs) 1am Peak Post Day : (6 msgs) Sunday Biggest Thread : (4 msgs) [spf-discuss] Mail::SPF 2.006 Hottest Subject : (2 msgs) [spf-discuss] Re: 2606bis Top 10 Posters -------------- ( 6 msgs) Julian Mehnle ( 2 msgs) Frank Ellermann ( 1 msgs) Beach, Richard ( 1 msgs) Rich Johnson ( 1 msgs) servitude ( 1 msgs) spf-discuss< at >winserver.com Top 10 Threads -------------- ( 4 msgs) [spf-discuss] Mail::SPF 2.006 ( 2 msgs) [spf-discuss] RFC 4408 test-suite 2008.08 released ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Forum Summary: spf-help ---------------------------------------------------------------------- No Messages Posted ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Report Created by iMail News Gateway Server v3.1

jSPF 0.9.6 passing RFC 4408 test suite 2007.05; no more "reference implementations"!

Julian Mehnle — 2008-08-20T19:01:50

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Stefano Bagnara wrote: Got it. I listed jSPF as compliant with 2007.05 since 0.9.6: http://www.openspf.org/Implementations In the process, I removed the entire "reference implementations" section. It was controversial from the beginning, and its entire purpose was to get the old Mail::SPF::Query deprecated gracefully, which once upon a time actually _was_ the reference implementation. It would have been hard to overcome M:S:Q's "reference implementation" character without serving any replacement, however now that we do have a number of high quality implementations as well as a solid compliance testing concept (the test suite with its release scheme), there isn't a need for having dedicated "reference implementations" anymore. So let's NOT say anything like "2008.08: trunk" in addition to "2007.05: since 0.9.6". Please do. Now that we've reasonably established that 0.9.6 passes 2007.05, there's little speaking against giving you the benefit of the doubt and _right_away_ listing 0.9.7 as passing 2008.08, but that might confuse users who then go looking for 0.9.7 despite it not having been released yet. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkisah4ACgkQwL7PKlBZWjvT2QCgsqFgM5daXjdBchiLW5p4we2e 7vUAn0qlhJnhRa5j4b94i4hVbIwye6c5 =21mZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: 2606bis

Frank Ellermann — 2008-08-18T22:44:08

[...] No, it was me, I used the wrong "punycode decode" idn --debug --punycode-decode 'xn--wgv71a' instead of the correct "IDNA to Unicode" idn --debug --idna-to-unicode 'xn--wgv71a' on the page . Not as fresh as your version, it says 2005 and 0.5.13 ;-) It's nice how the input shown above is aligned. Frank

Re: 2606bis

Julian Mehnle — 2008-08-18T21:15:08

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Frank Ellermann wrote: Mine doesn't complain, not even with "--tld": $ idn -u --tld .xn--wgv71a libidn 1.8 Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 Simon Josefsson. GNU Libidn comes with NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. You may redistribute copies of GNU Libidn under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License. For more information about these matters, see the file named COPYING.LIB. .日本 Or am I doing something wrong? I wasn't aware of that draft, thanks. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkip5lwACgkQwL7PKlBZWjvQ/QCfREPVkBtrnGPAdznAab7KkPfe v7wAoIYR2Z01K21FeWhdTl3ptAwlM6CT =rJ1k -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2606bis (was: Mail::SPF 2.006)

Frank Ellermann — 2008-08-18T14:17:11

LOL, that spooked me when I *claimed* that my rxwhois client supports the IDN test TLDs before they went live, and I later found that the code trying to parse NIC handles matched input with "-" before the code dealing with TLDs... ;-) BTW, GNU libidn says that xn--wgv71a is no valid IDNA output. Maybe take one of the 22 labels proposed in the 2606bis draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ellermann-idnabis-test-tlds#section-4 Frank

Re: Upcoming new test-suite release

Julian Mehnle — 2008-08-17T12:30:27

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Frank Ellermann wrote: Good, thanks for lending your eyeballs. Release impending. I added them, but rolled them up into a single test case ("macro-mania- in-domain"). No need to be extra redundant. Next stop: 2008.08 release announcement. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkioGeMACgkQwL7PKlBZWjtexgCg45tTST8dgzsdtFV4IJ56ZHxm xeQAnR1TkiIRpooqhlzOZMSqfFQPi62F =qhZP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

SPF Mail Summary Report

2008-08-17T05:00:02

iMail News Gateway Server v3.1 (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc. Mail Forum Statistics Date Range : 10 Aug 2008 - 16 Aug 2008 Report Date: 17 Aug 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Summary: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Forums : 2 Total Messages : 18 Total Participants : 8 Total Vendor Postings : 0 Total Mail/No Replies : 2 (11%) 6+ Days Old : 2 4+ Days Old: 0 2+ Days Old : 0 1 Day Old : 0 Busiest Posting Hour : 1am (2 msgs) Busiest Posting Day : Tuesday (5 msgs) +-[ Hourly Posting Pattern ]----------------------+ | * * * * * * | | * * * * * * | | * * * * * * | | * * * * * * | | * * * * * * | | * * * * * * * * * * * * | | * * * * * * * * * * * * | | * * * * * * * * * * * * | | * * * * * * * * * * * * | | * * * * * * * * * * * * | +------------ AM ---------|-------- PM -----------+ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-[ Daily Posting Pattern ]---------+ | * * | | * * | | * * * | | * * * | | * * * | | * * * | | * * * * | | * * * * | | * * * * * * | | * * * * * * | +-----------------------------------+ Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Top 10 Posters -------------- ( 6 msgs) Boyd Lynn Gerber ( 3 msgs) Rob MacGregor ( 3 msgs) Scott Kitterman ( 2 msgs) Frank Ellermann ( 1 msgs) Brownlee, Simon ( 1 msgs) MacShane, Tracy ( 1 msgs) Julian Mehnle ( 1 msgs) spf-discuss< at >winserver.com Top Forums ---------- ( 15 msgs) spf-help ( 3 msgs) spf-discuss ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Forum Summary: spf-discuss ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Messages : 3 Participants : 3 Vendor Postings : 0 Mail/No Replies : 2 (66%) 6+ Days Old : 2 4+ Days Old: 0 2+ Days Old : 0 1 Day Old : 0 Top Poster : (1 msgs) Brownlee, Simon Peak Post Hour : (2 msgs) 1am Peak Post Day : (2 msgs) Sunday Biggest Thread : Hottest Subject : (1 msgs) [spf-discuss] Re: Upcoming new test-suite release Top 10 Posters -------------- ( 1 msgs) Brownlee, Simon ( 1 msgs) Julian Mehnle ( 1 msgs) spf-discuss< at >winserver.com Top 10 Threads -------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Forum Summary: spf-help ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Messages : 15 Participants : 5 Vendor Postings : 0 Mail/No Replies : 0 (0%) 6+ Days Old : 0 4+ Days Old: 0 2+ Days Old : 0 1 Day Old : 0 Top Poster : (6 msgs) Boyd Lynn Gerber Peak Post Hour : (2 msgs) 10am Peak Post Day : (5 msgs) Tuesday Biggest Thread : (9 msgs) RE: [spf-help] RE: Upgrading python-policy-spf Hottest Subject : (10 msgs) [spf-help] RE: Upgrading python-policy-spf Top 10 Posters -------------- ( 6 msgs) Boyd Lynn Gerber ( 3 msgs) Rob MacGregor ( 3 msgs) Scott Kitterman ( 2 msgs) Frank Ellermann ( 1 msgs) MacShane, Tracy Top 10 Threads -------------- ( 9 msgs) RE: [spf-help] RE: Upgrading python-policy-spf ( 5 msgs) [spf-help] Fw: Rejected email due to SPF ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Report Created by iMail News Gateway Server v3.1

SPF Mail Summary Report

2008-08-10T05:00:03

iMail News Gateway Server v3.1 (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc. Mail Forum Statistics Date Range : 03 Aug 2008 - 07 Aug 2008 Report Date: 10 Aug 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Summary: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Forums : 2 Total Messages : 18 Total Participants : 15 Total Vendor Postings : 0 Total Mail/No Replies : 6 (33%) 6+ Days Old : 4 4+ Days Old: 1 2+ Days Old : 1 1 Day Old : 0 Busiest Posting Hour : 1am (6 msgs) Busiest Posting Day : Sunday (5 msgs) +-[ Hourly Posting Pattern ]----------------------+ | * | | * | | * | | * | | * | | * * | | * * | | * * * | | * * * | | * * * * * * * * * * | +------------ AM ---------|-------- PM -----------+ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-[ Daily Posting Pattern ]---------+ | * * | | * * | | * * * | | * * * | | * * * * | | * * * * | | * * * * | | * * * * | | * * * * * | | * * * * * | +-----------------------------------+ Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Top 10 Posters -------------- ( 2 msgs) Frank Ellermann ( 2 msgs) MacShane, Tracy ( 2 msgs) Scott Kitterman ( 1 msgs) Allen Clark ( 1 msgs) Bob Davis ( 1 msgs) Lehmann Peter (MMZOPLE) ( 1 msgs) Richards, Dan ( 1 msgs) Rob MacGregor ( 1 msgs) Steve Yates ( 1 msgs) Turowski Thibodeaux Top Forums ---------- ( 10 msgs) spf-help ( 8 msgs) spf-discuss ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Forum Summary: spf-discuss ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Messages : 8 Participants : 7 Vendor Postings : 0 Mail/No Replies : 5 (62%) 6+ Days Old : 4 4+ Days Old: 0 2+ Days Old : 1 1 Day Old : 0 Top Poster : (2 msgs) Frank Ellermann Peak Post Hour : (4 msgs) 1am Peak Post Day : (4 msgs) Sunday Biggest Thread : (3 msgs) [spf-discuss] Re: SPF-EAI Hottest Subject : (3 msgs) [spf-discuss] Re: SPF-EAI Top 10 Posters -------------- ( 2 msgs) Frank Ellermann ( 1 msgs) Lehmann Peter (MMZOPLE) ( 1 msgs) Richards, Dan ( 1 msgs) Turowski Thibodeaux ( 1 msgs) NHR< at >tooltechnicsystems.com ( 1 msgs) Scott Kitterman ( 1 msgs) spf-discuss< at >winserver.com Top 10 Threads -------------- ( 3 msgs) [spf-discuss] Re: SPF-EAI ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Forum Summary: spf-help ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Messages : 10 Participants : 9 Vendor Postings : 0 Mail/No Replies : 1 (10%) 6+ Days Old : 0 4+ Days Old: 1 2+ Days Old : 0 1 Day Old : 0 Top Poster : (2 msgs) MacShane, Tracy Peak Post Hour : (2 msgs) 1am Peak Post Day : (5 msgs) Monday Biggest Thread : (5 msgs) [spf-help] Limitations on location of DNS records Hottest Subject : (4 msgs) [spf-help] Limitations on location of DNS records Top 10 Posters -------------- ( 2 msgs) MacShane, Tracy ( 1 msgs) Allen Clark ( 1 msgs) Bob Davis ( 1 msgs) Rob MacGregor ( 1 msgs) Steve Yates ( 1 msgs) Alan Clifford ( 1 msgs) Alex van den Bogaerdt ( 1 msgs) Boyd Lynn Gerber ( 1 msgs) Scott Kitterman Top 10 Threads -------------- ( 5 msgs) [spf-help] Limitations on location of DNS records ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Report Created by iMail News Gateway Server v3.1

Re: SPF-EAI

Frank Ellermann — 2008-08-06T15:43:28

Thanks Scott, the OpenSPF site needs editors with fresh ideas. Frank

Re: Re: SPF-EAI

Scott Kitterman — 2008-08-06T14:59:38

Julian has been active on #spf IRC. I gave him a ping and he said he'd look into it tonight. Scott K

Re: SPF-EAI

Frank Ellermann — 2008-08-06T14:41:39

Alessandro Vesely wrote on the DISCUSS list: For your Website write access request I can't tell who can handle that - my password died together with my old box a year ago. Julian can, but he wasn't around for some weeks, maybe Alex, Scott, or Stuart can handle it. "Thingy" (Julian's wiki software) does not cover its own configuration files, I think - could be wrong, maybe this depends on the installation - and needs a shell account for such tasks. Until we figure out how this can be arranged I could copy your table to the i18n article, or to a subpage of this article. Another idea is to *include* it there as is - I forgot how that's done with "thingy", but it was straight forward, and I'd know where to find a recipe. Frank

SPF Mail Summary Report

2008-08-03T05:00:02

iMail News Gateway Server v3.1 (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc. Mail Forum Statistics Date Range : 27 Jul 2008 - 02 Aug 2008 Report Date: 03 Aug 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Summary: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Forums : 2 Total Messages : 51 Total Participants : 19 Total Vendor Postings : 0 Total Mail/No Replies : 4 (7%) 6+ Days Old : 2 4+ Days Old: 0 2+ Days Old : 1 1 Day Old : 1 Busiest Posting Hour : 10am (7 msgs) Busiest Posting Day : Thursday (23 msgs) +-[ Hourly Posting Pattern ]----------------------+ | * | | * | | * * * | | * * * | | * * * | | * * * * * | | * * * * * * * * | | * * * * * * * * | | * * * * * * * * * * * * * | | * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | +------------ AM ---------|-------- PM -----------+ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-[ Daily Posting Pattern ]---------+ | * | | * | | * | | * | | * | | * | | * * | | * * * | | * * * | | * * * * * | +-----------------------------------+ Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Top 10 Posters -------------- ( 13 msgs) Frank Ellermann ( 8 msgs) Boyd Lynn Gerber ( 6 msgs) Scott Kitterman ( 3 msgs) Alessandro Vesely ( 3 msgs) Sanford Whiteman ( 2 msgs) Steve Yates ( 2 msgs) Susheel - WorldIndia.com ( 2 msgs) Bill Walton ( 2 msgs) Hannah Schroeter ( 1 msgs) Chris Sweeney Top Forums ---------- ( 35 msgs) spf-discuss ( 16 msgs) spf-help ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Forum Summary: spf-discuss ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Messages : 35 Participants : 11 Vendor Postings : 0 Mail/No Replies : 3 (8%) 6+ Days Old : 2 4+ Days Old: 0 2+ Days Old : 1 1 Day Old : 0 Top Poster : (10 msgs) Frank Ellermann Peak Post Hour : (4 msgs) 3pm Peak Post Day : (19 msgs) Thursday Biggest Thread : (14 msgs) [spf-discuss] Obivous forged email reply with bad SP... Hottest Subject : (6 msgs) [spf-discuss] Re: Email messages that are extremely ... Top 10 Posters -------------- ( 10 msgs) Frank Ellermann ( 8 msgs) Boyd Lynn Gerber ( 5 msgs) Scott Kitterman ( 3 msgs) Alessandro Vesely ( 3 msgs) Sanford Whiteman ( 1 msgs) long Wade ( 1 msgs) Rich Johnson ( 1 msgs) Stuart D. Gathman ( 1 msgs) Claire Campbell ( 1 msgs) Devin Ganger Top 10 Threads -------------- ( 14 msgs) [spf-discuss] Obivous forged email reply with bad SP... ( 12 msgs) [spf-discuss] Email messages that are extremely un h... ( 3 msgs) Re: [spf-discuss] Re: SPF-EAI ( 2 msgs) Re: [spf-discuss] Fwd: Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-r... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Forum Summary: spf-help ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Messages : 16 Participants : 10 Vendor Postings : 0 Mail/No Replies : 1 (6%) 6+ Days Old : 0 4+ Days Old: 0 2+ Days Old : 0 1 Day Old : 1 Top Poster : (3 msgs) Frank Ellermann Peak Post Hour : (4 msgs) 10am Peak Post Day : (4 msgs) Thursday Biggest Thread : (5 msgs) [spf-help] SPF policy for rawbits.com Hottest Subject : (4 msgs) [spf-help] SPF policy for rawbits.com Top 10 Posters -------------- ( 3 msgs) Frank Ellermann ( 2 msgs) Steve Yates ( 2 msgs) Susheel - WorldIndia.com ( 2 msgs) Bill Walton ( 2 msgs) Hannah Schroeter ( 1 msgs) Chris Sweeney ( 1 msgs) ExactEvents.com ( 1 msgs) Kenn Roberts ( 1 msgs) luciano mannucci ( 1 msgs) Scott Kitterman Top 10 Threads -------------- ( 5 msgs) [spf-help] SPF policy for rawbits.com ( 4 msgs) [spf-help] SPF record addition to reject backscatters ( 3 msgs) [spf-help] Spencerstuart.com ( 3 msgs) [spf-help] SPF Records Block All Mail ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Report Created by iMail News Gateway Server v3.1

Re: trusted-forwarders.org

Frank Ellermann — 2008-08-01T23:06:18

Yeah :-( "Learn the difference between forwarder and forwarders" is not exciting enough for the SPF main page. I reverted three edited pages, hiding News/2008-07-17 as "#PRIVATE". Apologies for this unscheduled exercise, Frank

trusted-forwarders.org (was: Obivous forged email reply with bad SPF info... Here is a header...)

Frank Ellermann — 2008-08-01T17:37:36

Oops. I propose to send that info to SPF ANNOUNCE, and put it on the main page as "news". Frank

Re: Obivous forged email reply with bad SPF info... Here is a header...

Frank Ellermann — 2008-08-01T17:25:11

If that's about mails I have NOT sent, ideally SPF FAIL, I'd report this as spam. That is a core concept of SPF: (1) spammer forges my FAIL-protected address (2) receiver rejects FAIL at their border MTA (3) spammer won't create a bounce to me - in theory they could, but of course it would be reportable spam, what else ? Alternative scenario (relevant for SPF): (1) spammer forges my FAIL-protected address (2) primary receiver forwards to third party (3) 3rd party rejects FAIL at their border MTA (4) primary receiver (forwarder) sends bounce to me. Same result as above, this *IS* reportable spam. Taking "traditional forwarders" out of business (half-open relays) is a core point of SPF FAIL. Frank

Re: Obivous forged email reply with bad SPF info... Here is a header...

Alessandro Vesely — 2008-08-01T08:39:43

The bounce is apparently generated by smtp.ispras.ru after intellij.net rejected the message. Correctly, since they are the MX of jetbrains.com, and SPF test fails. Obviously, smtp.ispras.ru does no SPF checks... Perhaps someone should advise the postmaster at intellij.net (in CC) that the url they have configured results in HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 07:48:56 GMT Server: Apache/2.0.55 (Debian) DAV/2 SVN/1.3.2 mod_ssl/2.0.55 OpenSSL/0.9.8g mod_apreq2-20051231/2.6.0 mod_perl/2.0.2 Perl/v5.8.8 Location: http://www.openspf.org/why.html?sender=gerber%40zenez.com&ip=83.149.198.201&receiver=is.intellij.net It means that The requested resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource SHOULD use one of the returned URIs. Except for the obsolete pointer, the advice in the page thus referenced seems valid ("This means SPF is working as designed"). Does that imply that ispras.ru is _not_ working as it should? The text could be more explicit on that point... Finally, note that googling for `site:trusted-forwarders.org spf' yields no results. That domain name has expired, so it is probably not a good idea to include it in spf records, for the time being...

Re[2]: Obivous forged email reply with bad SPF info... Here is a header...

Sanford Whiteman — 2008-08-01T05:31:43

I agree with Frank that this would be inadvisable and unnecessary. Still, should it continue to be considered, please don't propose 'A' as the name of the mechanism. More appropriate would be 'N' as in 'Name'. Reason: Many APIs forgive, or even invite, a call to gethostbyname() that passes a string representation of an IP4/6 address, echoing that address instead of looking it up as an (invalid) FQDN. On the other hand -- assuming 'A' was meant to stand for a general type 'Address'