Re: [spfbis] auth-results and spf

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Thu, 11 February 2016 04:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EB801A8AD3 for <>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:37:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R8l9nZOBnSBr for <>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:37:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C90F1A8AD2 for <>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:37:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id k196so28963666vka.0 for <>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:37:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=SnC9FFjgpsntQ6FsqmGOptBtzOGKAlOXz/IuKx4OwCU=; b=gRTLw8nnsY+AAz8wOLY3bqa/Q7xj1vamvuLd1rvCSTPJlhk4E4/bvN/puQpjzn9X5z aqN/GNJUXXKbL6zxj+wrXJCI4MbJ9IG/pU2ii1K+jr6EcIg2zBDXxW8kR2WnY8FQfSv8 paGLt3ApqwFAnGoHQVs3+1f8b1zYE2H44c6Si5IZzxB/lifUSFvWUVWUGF5wr+zTnZO5 +tbIVRNOMt+b8mBhQ5fUhfSd2JtoBVLjgueyr06b1bukTGUMUvMbVUvmsI42hneRneNo iswjDvvjYd3AODbLg+xRna/uaC1rm/BfbbXMCMJruoTYXzanAuoQUueJYHbhqJ9kElR+ htqw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=SnC9FFjgpsntQ6FsqmGOptBtzOGKAlOXz/IuKx4OwCU=; b=S8BaN/sHY3E4eg/a8EpbHjrYJnRvAdJdcjhzOxa7S1Chrt0k5GVGS34EjjlVluaKiY Fs8oXFQEXAMfhC4kRnG1jwwUUqwvO20W81hJdOvGG9JKH5DcAI6iZby6G37cBu+dyg8T lMn3huKdCj4p4l9VcX8Cw/CyFLgmLZdUe1q+Ydijp2oFJgwhxxb9ejMeWCj3fYKqN6ZU mU2uh/W2Ag2chMZ5vshq/E2T25x8+dX5etGLVA8VYQRc2Y4QuMKYx/TTkE4jZFznmocU 8QxVnW+7i1Kx57MYMrAHhfgevsnNo2NTbZet2ojL1atyiyp9Dng41PS38mRD2f9k9uod Ymzw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQYL7Aj8f+yhIBo2Q64p8rSN9WXBSEpaDPbQYQ3I3jhK0p4jcHV1yGbKVKcyYBQbZQ9hu8oc2GnGNrD5A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id i130mr33745768vke.144.1455165470599; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:37:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:37:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:37:50 -0800
Message-ID: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
To: Scott Kitterman <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1142ed96f6f0d5052b771c17
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] auth-results and spf
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 04:37:53 -0000

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Scott Kitterman <>; wrote:

> If I recall correctly, this goes back to the original discussions on
> 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.
Yeah, that was mostly it.  A-R was meant to provide (a) the outputs of
authentication methods, and (b) what thing was actually authenticated,
i.e., what part of the visible message you think is "safe" as a result.
For most methods I can think of, it's the domain name in the From: field or
the MAIL FROM parameter, so there was no need to report the IP address as
well; what would a typical user do with that?

Someone was pushing to add it so that SPF could be re-evaluated by the MUA,
but there wasn't much in the way of support for that (and, in fact, it
resulted in what is now Appendix C of RFC7601).