Re: [Asrg] misconception in SPF

SM <sm@resistor.net> Fri, 07 December 2012 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 0B07621F8786 for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 13:32:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.63
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.63 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 N4z3t4l33ARU for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 13:32:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763EF21F8784 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 13:32:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qB7LWA5j018505 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 13:32:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1354915934; bh=N8XxbTli0SY4ceWgdslxVMpq2/Chd1k/+P6h8Ou2+MI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=AKa1oNCTekCQ1quSPuF2JqX8NNqXSAmO2p2Umh8Npr004OT7q0YhSYWEwL8JxLAEB BJ9f/XfgkM6uSo3up2CiK6aWEczWs2WxGDAPY+Z6WmIaFCW+t57MZ4xD5v6d+3O13a 6okq/YJ3gY/weGSE4c/lf6mKJkAEgZFstTejj008=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1354915934; i=@resistor.net; bh=N8XxbTli0SY4ceWgdslxVMpq2/Chd1k/+P6h8Ou2+MI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=gcAVQT2r5yKF/bKtPpcRqCCCShudthScE+RY8qx+MKvz6wb7SxddsBb/P/iEqMSle fT3VE0dOBAZ1tx1ao2AWCuVmz5gH2fmgqjQ+7wBoBnbUjyjbpWzGxYtt0/yT/mADlU jsHKe7rXt8NzxdU70vr29WVlzQ43qCTsFVJu2+MA=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121207132220.0b7304f8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:32:00 -0800
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <50C244A6.1040402@pscs.co.uk>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 21:32:17 -0000

Hi Paul,
At 11:33 07-12-2012, Paul Smith wrote:
>Do people really send messages with a return path of 
>'noreply@example'? Or, do you mean that people use a return path of 
>'noreply@<their own domain>'?

I used "example" as an example.  I misunderstood what you meant by 
reply.  I was referring to what's used as the author address.

I don't recall whether noreply@example is used in the envelope for 
delivery failures (assuming valid messages).  There are valid 
messages with an invalid Return-Path.  This may due to some 
assumptions about how email works.

>With the former, I'd expect a large number of those messages to be 
>blocked/discarded (it's common to do call back verification, or just 
>simply check that the sender domain

Call-back verification can be used to trigger a Denial of Service.

Regards,
-sm