Re: [Asrg] misconception in SPF

"Bill Cole" <asrg3@billmail.scconsult.com> Sat, 08 December 2012 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <asrg3@billmail.scconsult.com>
X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CF0021F8587 for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:03:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dHWI4MU3kLks for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:03:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from toaster.scconsult.com (client.scconsult.com [66.73.230.190]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C787B21F855F for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:03:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.254.21] (deepfield.scconsult.com [192.168.254.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3YJg1y5Jy9zrYBR for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 8 Dec 2012 14:03:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Cole <asrg3@billmail.scconsult.com>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2012 14:03:45 -0500
Message-ID: <BF717AC8-D422-412B-BF97-AAD0D5F04E7A@billmail.scconsult.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20121207132220.0b7304f8@resistor.net>
References: <20121206212116.10328.qmail@joyce.lan> <50C1A95A.5000001@pscs.co.uk> <CAFdugan=tzj+oMMSLH0ukWHK5jF7tSjbp5jx1uBauaq_YF6pxw@mail.gmail.com> <50C21EFC.4060508@pscs.co.uk> <6.2.5.6.2.20121207091426.0b4ecdf0@resistor.net> <50C244A6.1040402@pscs.co.uk> <6.2.5.6.2.20121207132220.0b7304f8@resistor.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.5r3119)
Subject: Re: [Asrg] misconception in SPF
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2012 19:03:52 -0000

On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:32, SM wrote:

> I don't recall whether noreply@example is used in the envelope for 
> delivery failures (assuming valid messages).

If that sentence is not mis-worded, it is a declaration of ignorance of 
important fundamental facts about how email works. RFC5321 is required 
reading for anyone who wants to be taken seriously in technical 
discussions of email.

> There are valid messages with an invalid Return-Path.

This could only be true when using a technically useless definition of 
"valid messages" which does not refer to any formal standard or even to 
informal best practice norms.

There are many strong arguments for mail systems to refrain from 
attempting to require strict compliance to many details of the SMTP and 
email format standards, but it is unhelpful to assume that historically 
or even currently widespread forbearance of operational enforcement of 
some facet of the standards grants any sort of validity to non-compliant 
messages.

> This may due to some assumptions about how email works.

Indeed.