Re: [spfbis] Question about SPF checks based on RFC 7208

Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com> Wed, 04 May 2016 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <spf2@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D979B12D864 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 May 2016 13:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bxRXw4TpaeGj for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 May 2016 13:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [IPv6:2607:f0d0:3001:aa::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCC8F12D869 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 May 2016 13:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kitterma-e6430.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D5E05C4029A for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 May 2016 15:57:33 -0500 (CDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=201409; t=1462395453; bh=34mk84q//c3pMy4u7ECoVOIx20T5n4okCh/YsaMGWpE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=V/iaybXX1sVVqE6QoF8LYvcTqVyKUNPZsYcuOPHG/RktyGFFEoyoWauX7YBSOiE4I dX43Ex/dqezctWt5tv+/H2ZYi6QatYXGL90AGyz3s5IVS3lsf/SP4vh8XqR73BBfwJ YBNd0ttu4AdALtAy4JXI6eXVSJpuq+1C9Em3O9R4=
From: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 16:57:32 -0400
Message-ID: <7596256.udTDuNhnso@kitterma-e6430>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-83-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1oW=p+Kj8OK0qFHuPgsg9uhZ1+FumiXff0Ltuecu5aBRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002101d1a342$c93e3000$5bba9000$@iname.com> <CAL0qLwYKQBithC4E7iZY_PXcQOhLY=4wORaAsWBTZyUEc2+kCA@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1oW=p+Kj8OK0qFHuPgsg9uhZ1+FumiXff0Ltuecu5aBRg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/BJOBk9tS9swxgpP8Bhm93N7Jh54>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Question about SPF checks based on RFC 7208
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spfbis/>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 20:57:39 -0000

On Wednesday, May 04, 2016 08:37:33 AM Kurt Andersen wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>;
> 
> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:48 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>; wrote:
> >> My suggestion is to clarify exactly what constitutes a "void DNS lookup"
> >> 
> >>> in the case of an MX mechanism. I suggest that we define a void MX
> >>> lookup
> >>> to be one that either returns no records or returns the "null MX record"
> >>> (RFC7505). Could this be done as an erratum item?
> >> 
> >> Please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php for information about
> >> how to report an erratum and how the erratum will be processed.  The
> >> above
> >> might be too much for an erratum.
> > 
> > I guess we used the term in the lists but the definition never made it
> > into the document.  Damn.
> > 
> > Anyway, I support logging an erratum for this if that's the main issue.
> > Who knows if and when there will be enough energy and interest to do an
> > update.
> > 
> > -MSK
> 
> I'll have to go back and research the usage of the term in the spfbis
> mailing lists. I'll follow up with a note here once I have a proposal with
> concrete wording.
> 
> --Kurt

SPFbis picked this up from Mail::SPF under the charter terms that allowed 
"addition of any enhancements that have already gained widespread support" 
[1], so the relevant section of the Mail::SPF documentation [2] may also be a 
useful source of information.

Scott K


[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/spfbis/charter/
[2] https://metacpan.org/pod/Mail::SPF::Server