Re: [Asrg] misconception in SPF

Christian Grunfeld <christian.grunfeld@gmail.com> Tue, 11 December 2012 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <christian.grunfeld@gmail.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 A1AD421F87C9 for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:07:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.095, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 6YX67r2rHvnr for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:07:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ia0-f172.google.com (mail-ia0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD6C121F8780 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:07:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ia0-f172.google.com with SMTP id z13so8155732iaz.31 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:07:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=PqMOwu5dhd5mwHPhf6EmSTEnwHdU0d9hGq77U7Iopl4=; b=RVimKtp9zbDKiWg2SKNEyMnuHe1qiJfiHjtjBc+aAbWXqaWTZI1rbdUD5NGtvjBSjs w4vqCVj6MmVPC6DmHduDarcPFtl2OJuWecNIykTzeRvA/T0aYOKW7wzdCv4nm4a/VXv2 rZcUv8KsbiVJ0QruuWcSSQT78L9RZDsHvqgea0+GbLCnQzjBRsy6YZ8CmKT4QTFlqVXL 0MgmMY5w3mXwlyeJnuYIe5Eu7lV4S456Qg4BH2EYSAW/dfxQzc8MJyyTKRmpTGPAOr0H jbxYwXyoyegJ9+gQ49DajWr6M5mJqV5ftJdpf1p3B8SoP0raufIwwAhvFZZVjnHr1zp7 ys0g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.160.228 with SMTP id xn4mr10474874igb.7.1355242024304; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:07:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.65.79 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:07:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <50C749C1.3090100@jdmc.org>
References: <1915198247.6651.1355114075018.JavaMail.root@peachymango.org> <50C749C1.3090100@jdmc.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:07:04 -0300
Message-ID: <CAFdugakviu=nyqEYh6AA4J_pR1TAYzzOoHcF20r=QL_--WPEDg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christian Grunfeld <christian.grunfeld@gmail.com>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:07:05 -0000

yes, nice article !

If, for example, gmail/google is supporting DMARC why do they allow
multi-identities in From: header? this can really break DMARC tests.

Another point about SPF and forwardings... do ones allowing forwarding
and publishing -all must implement SRS to tackle the problem?



2012/12/11 John Johnson <jjohnson@jdmc.org>rg>:
> Franck Martin wrote:
>> This issue is handled by DMARC, as it can work on all subdomains with only one TXT record.
>>
>> If you try to do the same with SPF only, this may be complicated.
>>
>> But then DMARC p=reject is not for all.
>
>   +1, maybe +2
>
>   I now get reports of hosts attempting to send using a subdomain that isn't in use.
>   Franck, thanks for your article on DMARC, it truly is a good tool.
>
> -john
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg