Re: [spfbis] auth-results and spf
"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 11 February 2016 04:37 UTC
Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 1EB801A8AD3 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:37:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R8l9nZOBnSBr for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:37:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x229.google.com (mail-vk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C90F1A8AD2 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:37:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id k196so28963666vka.0 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:37:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; 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; d=1e100.net; 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 10.31.159.136 with SMTP id i130mr33745768vke.144.1455165470599; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:37:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.103.72.195 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:37:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <341A0C2E-388B-4945-8877-A6F4C93D9D82@kitterman.com>
References: <CABa8R6v0b5vVcgTSveWzzXvvQGHoosCAgADyxBNLOprtaj+TLA@mail.gmail.com> <341A0C2E-388B-4945-8877-A6F4C93D9D82@kitterman.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:37:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwb3cDDyDQOw0NikNx6=hy5K_qZQL0xEEny-3wTUi9PEtQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1142ed96f6f0d5052b771c17"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/WInAaCh4Hr8QEjEd7754dc9nHQU>
Cc: "spfbis@ietf.org" <spfbis@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 04:37:53 -0000
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com> wrote: > 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. > > 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). -MSK
- [spfbis] auth-results and spf Brandon Long
- Re: [spfbis] auth-results and spf Franck Martin
- Re: [spfbis] auth-results and spf Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] auth-results and spf John Levine
- Re: [spfbis] auth-results and spf Murray S. Kucherawy