IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Asrg] misconception in SPF

Laura Atkins <laura@carrotcafe.com> Tue, 11 December 2012 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <laura@carrotcafe.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 86D0221F8625 for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:51:07 -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 RpYnAUbNNv2D for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:51:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from m.wordtothewise.com (misc.wordtothewise.com [184.105.179.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E3DF21F860F for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:51:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grover.wordtothewise.com (204.11.227.194.static.etheric.net [204.11.227.194]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: wttwlaura) by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A70702DECF for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:51:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=wordtothewise.com; s=1.wttw; t=1355248264; bh=bcyv57I1rMUh5iP979o/ozfdHn2TB/M99DsF8zY9Olk=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=Ynx0KK7l1Lg+PhnLF50uvbKbu8j8Fk+fF2blJdaEUdNolqFj0ume5ChuIHdcaTrs/ 3U81tTaefSa1wZyI+GUyC5YdeX0JMBiHxR8ubuek8+M1ROHVIjR5POxMvFZWXhceo1 HAgWCvO74QO+HDSS6FVmuvl9Cylotmm7vf7Y9dck=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
From: Laura Atkins <laura@carrotcafe.com>
In-Reply-To: <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20AD790A@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:51:01 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E0E42DC6-9DC3-4E35-A600-2CC90B85EE32@carrotcafe.com>
References: <20121206212116.10328.qmail@joyce.lan> <50C1A95A.5000001@pscs.co.uk> <50C4A7F8.3010201@dcrocker.net> <CAFdugamTbTirVV2zXKOmc9oTaCS+QiTemhT=jvYJnHYscHQK7g@mail.gmail.com> <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20ACE6D0@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos> <20121209213307.D90C12429B@panix5.panix.com> <CAFduganBR_E-ui-3Xbic6F7qSmg1-Q+ideXLvb+1isLz8OF0Nw@mail.gmail.com> <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20ACFFE1@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos> <50C5A9A0.105@pscs.co.uk> <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20AD01B2@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos> <20121210145627.GA21217@gsp.org> <CAFdugakdqoN7S2YuWEVHo_YaOZJTPKt1w7tdcn8oasB=gb+qcg@mail.gmail.com> <50C60F9E.1060202@mustelids.ca>, <CAFdugakaY6Lh_5HR8xN7YqrimO9nM72mpxtLwE7T0CpKFu75tA@mail.gmail.com> <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20AD08F6@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos>, <50C6E652.7010401@tana.it> <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20AD790A@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
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 17:51:26 -0000

On Dec 11, 2012, at 12:45 AM, Martijn Grooten wrote:

>> Does that imply that most, or even a relevant percentage of them [block SPF fails]?
> 
> No. I know some do, but I think it's a minority. (Among commercial spam-filters used mainly by corporations, that is. It could be that some of the larger ISPs block SPF fails outright, which would skew the picture.)

I know no major ISP that reject a mail for a SPF fail. 

In fact, I'm getting multiple reports from clients and random senders this week that Hotmail is now sending out SPF failure emails to domains publishing DMARC records.

laura 

-- 
Laura Atkins   laura@carrotcafe.com

   "If you do not choose to lead, you will forever be led by others.
   Find what  scares you and do it. And you *can* make a difference,
   if you choose to do so." JMS

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email