IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] auth-results and spf

Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com> Wed, 10 February 2016 01:27 UTC

Return-Path: <spf2@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27D441B34CF for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 17:27:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.402
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_65=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 A46fxhrzrq7d for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 17:27:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2566C1B34D5 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 17:27:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.111.103] (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D0BC6C4017C for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 19:27:42 -0600 (CST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=201409; t=1455067662; bh=Y26+HgtLThaVh8QXso+eqHL9KeLxyIF631yEd8sD9io=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Date:To:From; b=XXIfXgOhRn0gW5kzdbAbfTJwt1V8j6IX7P74KIOUevbXrB2ZkI0ByHI13t9ivflTi 7DjzzyGtXlX+pSD3a+qvOnqFwdXG9IQH84Vv3KgkW+jFIL+sNkGIfsT7v7gCoHN+I3 L2GAhFApbCJylTV5apNf6SiD/rVQKU4T2AbGX2bA=
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CABa8R6v0b5vVcgTSveWzzXvvQGHoosCAgADyxBNLOprtaj+TLA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABa8R6v0b5vVcgTSveWzzXvvQGHoosCAgADyxBNLOprtaj+TLA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
From: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:27:31 -0500
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Message-ID: <341A0C2E-388B-4945-8877-A6F4C93D9D82@kitterman.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/Fb1yVkerKMH88baspRSp0YaotKs>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] auth-results and spf
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 10 Feb 2016 01:27:45 -0000


On February 9, 2016 4:44:04 PM EST, Brandon Long <blong@google.com> wrote:
>Not sure the best list to send this to... but anyone know why the IP
>isn't
>a formal field in the spf method for the Authentication-Results header
>(RFC
>7601)?
>
>For "iprev", there is policy.iprev, but there isn't one for spf.  We
>put it
>in the comment now, but it would seem like an obvious requirement for
>what
>was evaluated.

If I recall correctly, this goes back to the original discussions on mail-vet-discuss@mipassoc.org and what became RFC 5451.  You can check the list archive for details, but I believe it wasn't included on the theory that IP address is an input, not an output of the SPF check.

This was hotly debated at the time and this is how it came out.  It's one of the reasons that A-R isn't a complete replacement for Received-SPF.

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email