Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #1 - SPF alignment

Alessandro Vesely <> Tue, 26 January 2021 11:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF5163A0B8C for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 03:55:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.521
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id drEy3L5Eo7rW for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 03:55:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C37D3A0B83 for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 03:54:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=delta; t=1611662097; bh=hByzfJZVD/rPfE5kYeiAkR+Iq3qEqM1qPsVgk1ZJu50=; l=1400; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BkD7c2p94q9I0zaKNBMqkNoF9lcurpYk9gD7dE4tn7JlURpz7hirFkb9fBHyfssbJ zkmg40lB9tgFE7TnVYRpeO8QpJtLtIQSkN6xUEaw+VwLo2Uun+ZW4F7EGBeTi3GZzm NCMkk/XCTLYBFRac/zb8F0gBh05w+CGN12Z7RRCkLg6tB5wRoBqMIXSch7WV+
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC09F.0000000060100311.00004452; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 12:54:57 +0100
References: <> <> <> <1627293.fjaifilARp@zini-1880>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 12:54:56 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1627293.fjaifilARp@zini-1880>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #1 - SPF alignment
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 11:55:02 -0000

On Mon 25/Jan/2021 22:35:09 +0100 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Monday, January 25, 2021 4:04:33 PM EST Todd Herr wrote:
>> May I propose that the section labeled "SPF-Authenticated Identifiers" be
>> rewritten as follows:
>> [...]
>>    The reader should note that SPF alignment checks in DMARC rely solely
>>    on the RFC5321.MailFrom domain. This differs from section 2.3 of 
>>    [@!RFC7208], which recommends that SPF checks be done on not only the
>>    "MAIL FROM" but also on a separate check of the "HELO" identity. >
> I think this is fine, but there is a subtlety to be aware of.
> If you look at RFC 7208 Section 2.4, when Mail From is null, postmaster@HELO
> is the mail from for SPF purposes.  DMARC really can't change that.
> As a result, there are cases where Mail From results actually are derived from
> HELO and it's unavoidable.

I doubt that SPF filters report envelope-from=postmaster@HELO; more likely they 
write helo=HELO.  In that case, the paragraph quoted above is deceptive.

> I believe the proposed text is clear enough about not using separate HELO
> identity results and that's appropriate.

My filter collects SPF results recorded from an upstream SPF filter.  It writes 
Received-SPF: lines for each identity.  For NDNs, it writes a Received-SPF: for 
the HELO identity only.  Am I allowed to use that result for DMARC?