Re: [Asrg] misconception in SPF

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 11 December 2012 07:52 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 2FF3521F84D8 for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:52:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 g5OG-KWdY3EX for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:52:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1EDD21F84D5 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:52:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1355212371; bh=OA+8mqZwiDqTeW1iuOF96JJsOWVHSGWosDT62gJao2A=; l=472; h=Date:From:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=eq07xmmrzOgo87JNsIGJVjqGNz0hNyQRxjzKqvMeFAURqwIcUioWwO21Y2itVPoR+ KGKkcz53uciecwDTROMQIOkmgRqdx1ERfiHGszdX+1DwrxuLL9JaiuSSYCjCYTuxOn +YonRdwHq0TgrJacbPWFocwdWfZy8DBvTlB6dYsI=
Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:52:50 +0100 id 00000000005DC035.0000000050C6E652.000044F3
Message-ID: <50C6E652.7010401@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:52:50 +0100
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: asrg@irtf.org
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>
In-Reply-To: <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20AD08F6@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 07:52:55 -0000

On Mon 10/Dec/2012 18:32:48 +0100 Martijn Grooten wrote:
>
> Heck, you can even use google.com, the SPF record of which only
> tells the receiving MTA that it probably wasn't Google who sent the
> email, for it uses ~all rather than -all. And even if it did use
> -all, it doesn't necessarily mean that the email wouldn't get
> delivered as not all spam filters/MTAs block SPF fails.
               ^^^^^^^
Does that imply that most, or even a relevant percentage of them, do?