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

S Moonesamy <> Fri, 24 June 2016 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 316B112B05B for <>; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:14:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.216
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=Wk3tNMdc; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=1m6iVXKA
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k0MW8B5sq2bI for <>; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5A7012B037 for <>; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5OIEMbk027458 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1466792074; x=1466878474; bh=RSpZf6J4FL5XwOxhcENcqSZfAXe+fjprlrmFAEUKI8s=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Wk3tNMdcI5sxzKRj8jrKIF/OGmIGjriYhJ7SxraksCxIvERGfy7iuLwehwaFn60+I u67dira+6fRAw+Jt+xnjkTBVH0TsF90mTky425vyWwYbtAL6elhyuzGDK8db4QXKtW 6HMjRaRGNcUS/z+EIpth70DTBPN9aPeFVeeNGITw=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1466792074; x=1466878474;; bh=RSpZf6J4FL5XwOxhcENcqSZfAXe+fjprlrmFAEUKI8s=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=1m6iVXKAUwBAvS4FyCuarLfOC3NHXd3ww2mYHwU/gaHZGhKox/0+J5VKy2xJ1tnn0 37dMQbYPD47oYddibyAPcVOvphMse7NQfO7UypR+i9mtTPWC4+8GQvgGR5AaApbmRX vJa0L8f8T5tBNVl3WbgGGyOaq3Hahk7T63tMmrUo=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:12:30 -0700
To: Frank Bulk <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <000501d1cd73$5d6a0f60$183e2e20$>
References: <002101d1a342$c93e3000$5bba9000$> <> <000501d1cd73$5d6a0f60$183e2e20$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Question about SPF checks based on RFC 7208
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 18:14:37 -0000

Hi Frank,
At 10:19 23-06-2016, Frank Bulk wrote:
>I'm looping back into the conversation again because we've had two different
>ag-business customers get bitten by this in the last two days, trying to
>send emails (via IPv6) to the USDA who apparently uses an SPF implementation
>that checks for the MX record's AAAAs and fails on too many void lookups.
>The workaround, in both cases, has been for us to move 'mx' to end of the
>ag-business' SPF record.

I'll look into this in the next few weeks.

S. Moonesamy