[spfbis] auth-results and spf
Brandon Long <blong@google.com> Tue, 09 February 2016 21:44 UTC
Return-Path: <blong@google.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 3A0C41B2A6F for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 13:44:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.779
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.779 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_65=0.6, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 h8GmDqZ6ZGr6 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 13:44:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x234.google.com (mail-io0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::234]) (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 38A471B2A4F for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 13:44:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x234.google.com with SMTP id f81so1973858iof.0 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 13:44:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=jHVrKMK0HkHRtWfYzwR0zfgNRb/ql9McdkEvRpdBG78=; b=DT5YrY+MhWwWBZyboyGpnmjrLHWck6MXN6w6MNsNjFcQcIJOldhEb7Og8tXYjIrGZj 5lXIeR89lWbmVTYUiPZwNW0+g0xwk8rWKtsan2vtvHBXjNFB3a6X96q//TTOMuaEdlDu DJUCrP6iOz4ckpzWyBeJSmU9jdqQCEVZLZ+h294tzyTnHqLN51uT49GVnqm6D9gE42C4 MUQGsmTVUMQvi7ZgsTGlTxROt75PbfB4TXQjw3K8eIbe7jQZNNySWguNd5cXF7pZc9h+ FMH1y+3Dm+eNgerTOpiRNTt8O/bKD7+g2kFDhuSizfxTOmMvRuHkmqBXPI7Zi+ZyMZv7 /NUQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=jHVrKMK0HkHRtWfYzwR0zfgNRb/ql9McdkEvRpdBG78=; b=lpuzaWa6PpTDeg5UXdHia51ZY9RU/ARO3m8trviV56jCgv6mU0yfmjRiID8Aj5/lPm N3KNjbTK7Nn7hJ+dppnO1sABbK6K496j+lbyKJzBx5g+I1c6PR+KncDhusSed0nPVYAg zVLIiQC+2+WA6Go+oEqEJfDaOCXK4M1Lk7vvsCB9huVRS7UW7XJ3Ge4x5csKQRorfhQp tVmh4gEFa3O9OPE/aA5tcrI3LJF+LH8WRwXPQNHEnI02zHFgA2C8tDEh8OYbvjC5GFbs xfeAxguAwUcs2LVs2JO9Z4IkkuUd1vQxBpbaBUNUmXW6E/4l9eGheryb+99Ow2PEA1lI Rq5A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOStPxdsdomUEPARaH/Ow/4xTCwc4tEstWmRsnnkbKnlGYOEHCw9ZesTg3zs8s7OnPV+YdRPdIfZ/dBvUa3M
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.153.11 with SMTP id b11mr2784008ioe.113.1455054244368; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 13:44:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.62.194 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 13:44:04 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 13:44:04 -0800
Message-ID: <CABa8R6v0b5vVcgTSveWzzXvvQGHoosCAgADyxBNLOprtaj+TLA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140faa25dcbcb052b5d37d9"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/Yb93MUt1s15DIXEgttNnfVKcCuw>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 15:32:11 -0800
Subject: [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: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 21:44:06 -0000
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. Brandon
- [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