gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss

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 ]----------------------+ | * | | * | | * | | *

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

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 ]----------------------+ | * * * * * * | | * * * * * * | | * * * * * * | | * * * * *

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 ]----------------------+ | * | | * | | * | | *

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 ]----------------------+ | * | | * | | * * * | | * * *

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 expl

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'

Re[3]: Obivous forged email reply with bad SPF info... Here is a header...

Sanford Whiteman — 2008-08-01T05:20:14

Okay, if they are looking at your current, valid SPF record, I do take back my call for leniency. Still backscattering when you have a valid record that concludes SPF FAIL? These people are a scourge. To me, this is as stupid as servers that accept mail that FAILs, even when their implementation could have rejected at envelope-time and they did not have the sender pre-whitelisted. This kind of pussyfooting/underreaching/overreaching by people who pretend to 'speak' SPF ridiculous. And yet... it's rare to get satisfaction unless you have spare time _and_ you can get one of their IT staff to take a gentle, learning interest in the problem. You won't do that by attacking their skills, even if they deserve it. You might start by saying that their servers appear to have been hijacked by spammers and that you are calling as a public service. --Sandy

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

Boyd Lynn Gerber — 2008-08-01T04:41:45

I would but now I have received 2000 of these emails... I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below. For further assistance, please send mail to If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message. The Postfix program jetbrains.com>: host mail.intellij.net[213.182.181.98] said: 550 Please%see%http://spf.pobox.com/why.html?sender=gerber%40zenez.com&ip=83 .149.198.201&receiver=is.intellij.net : Reason: mechanism (#5.7.1) (in reply to MAIL FROM command) but nothing more than this... -- Boyd Gerber zenez.com> ZENEZ1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047

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

Sanford Whiteman — 2008-08-01T03:27:40

You could try getting them listed at backscatterer.org for a minor bit of revenge. I think pursuing this further is probably not worth your while, though. The fact is that your SPF record was broken, and while these guys were sorely misguided in backscattering their post-rejection 'long form' DSNs, the assault did help you find a problem that you probably would not have noticed otherwise. So just call it even. --Sandy