Re: [dmarc-ietf] [spfbis] Should we encourage the use of SPF "soft include" for common platforms?

Alessandro Vesely <> Mon, 25 February 2019 10:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E7F812F1A5; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 02:24:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 aTuF3HonTgAN; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 02:24:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 147F412D4E6; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 02:24:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; t=1551090271; bh=ovwrj9n6tIIPY5973h1kFH33/r0P1WIhw88ADXw5Tig=; l=1174; h=To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=CSws7D93vD5h0KsbnwZMWHs4jsV2N+MqqamZHqzDhFD7ix0wfpGRzt2BWCfmsyIPj Vzezbv9ILEdiFsFZ+1Xa6Vt+lZKzQs5QERgdu5zn4z0dv1K/TV/wU+FftJnxAHVf/m yRWNCkRjUvFVaMCQCSNHhUtTjMjMXqY+oO/34Cbzb0d1Lua2fHVCa0oUF+ohM
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by with ESMTPA; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:24:30 +0100 id 00000000005DC085.000000005C73C25E.0000546F
To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <>, "" <>
References: <>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Openpgp: id=0A5B4BB141A53F7F55FC8CBCB6ACF44490D17C00
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:24:30 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [spfbis] Should we encourage the use of SPF "soft include" for common platforms?
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: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:24:35 -0000

On Sat 23/Feb/2019 19:07:31 +0100 Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:

> With the growth of huge platforms that emit mail from the same common set of
> IPs (such as GSuite, O365, or large ESPs), regular SPF "include" ends up
> granting a DMARC pass to a lot more potential authors than most organizations
> would necessarily choose to grant.

Hopefully, large organizations have a policy which enables them to drop
non-compliant users contracts.  The admin attitude.

Alternatively, they could expunge offending IP addresses from their SPF
records.  The whitelist attitude.

The rest is reputation.

> Instead of using the standard "(+)include:" approach, if domain owners used
> "?include:" as their mechanism, then that would prevent the SPF result from
> granting a DMARC PASS result when traffic is coming from one of these massively
> included platforms. It would essentially force the DMARC result to be driven
> only by the DKIM evaluation.

-1.  If DKIM were flawless, maybe...  Authentication of email messages
forwarded through various providers is already DKIM-only driven, but that
doesn't seem to improve reliability, does it?