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

Alessandro Vesely <> Wed, 09 December 2020 11:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F18A3A07A0 for <>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 03:46:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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_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 H07mtHkUGqNX for <>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 03:46:57 -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 43F013A0AF9 for <>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 03:46:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=delta; t=1607514401; bh=H+z9WDJ08FhpIitQsS0uqiL9O4NOxhTwv6LdnOzkMEo=; l=854; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=DTJ+MXXRRa32Qvc6A06Ivc0y19G3syXCSYciI1Yhvd2CRwkyNKuVLTdknK1Jbi1CA PPHNlM5633UF2Z0auSdWq/tu+0Fff4hlEwmN7Z7bl+kFF5cXN5qc/VYU4C7xcaRsww hWhG7jrLk0Sen+L+Hr/Y3SJY4tBg8aHXWp7xy5S/3hX73Sr/uUjuYaqJYf/Jl
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 00000000005DC056.000000005FD0B921.0000586A; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 12:46:41 +0100
References: <20201207221345.09DD72922E4A@ary.qy>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 12:46:41 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201207221345.09DD72922E4A@ary.qy>
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: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 11:46:59 -0000

On Mon 07/Dec/2020 23:13:44 +0100 John Levine wrote:
> In article <> you write:
>>> I have a slight preference for the first option.  HELO is too arbitrary in
>>> the protocol for me to put much value in using it in any of these systems.
>>There's a bit of an implementation detail though. If one is relying on an
>>encapsulated ck_host() function then you may not know whether it checked
>>the HELO or the MAIL FROM. Imposing a requirement like this from DMARC
>>seems like it verges on a layering violation.
> You should be able to look at the bounce address and if it's null,
> skip the SPF check.  No need to peek inside SPF for that.

That would discard most bounces, since many MTAs send them directly, without 
going through a signing filter.