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

Kurt Andersen <kurta@drkurt.com> Wed, 04 May 2016 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <kurta@drkurt.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E71D12D804 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 May 2016 08:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.com
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 rfqgV3vUSJ6q for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 May 2016 08:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x235.google.com (mail-ig0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::235]) (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 81B1412D843 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 May 2016 08:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-x235.google.com with SMTP id u10so151400474igr.1 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 May 2016 08:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=OxWAN4nejxsL/0QzMNm4tsDlH8BDyzffKUsj4lQGdsA=; b=fU8dVRoa5c19hKunsgqSYHrsFc4j0kzy5teOXOO7jNnttjNqaHPeLj63pLwGRCp5ac kigb5+AfxQJS94Jz5Czscxra2F56waQtzkvse7yKNpeMt5lRdfCzv07bMiUqORecaXxz 0rMkXcSCXcciTAGhtOhimbWgRAS6ruapIXVxw=
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; bh=OxWAN4nejxsL/0QzMNm4tsDlH8BDyzffKUsj4lQGdsA=; b=UHoRQlyd1a+uh8JGrEeTYDNBchLsdrP/qBKmnEbCGGtgsKdTld4xhjowXHv9R+UAa4 9xNDnYL65BmxqGoQtsXt+8XRzqS+dmsnxoY8qy/VnnFul8Pax1KThD1NoldbXOgzVWaM yW0occCDKgE/d1l0FG798Say+RY9XpooQhY8LRmLflhUQPGSv7T/mmdrGXRRHwi2gFxt KdGsos5FxCU94ytzSH0VuxbwQvILm8K8bGop7ROGJ+ZRDZ30N2a+4lqgKE+paIF4dKFP IuicXqQbP3BKYyMob9xh0N2KCps6HQ2IOkmA8oQMhKtx9he4PfMFDDzoVGK9XcQEn3cI STVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXSCMVN88IMEcTs2kkz75QHblPXA5XqhckptDsEoY87AVsiI0lMJloU9slC2fOdcZWUpQ5n+yHbbjlbfw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.51.17.4 with SMTP id ga4mr11828904igd.88.1462376253775; Wed, 04 May 2016 08:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.32.13 with HTTP; Wed, 4 May 2016 08:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYKQBithC4E7iZY_PXcQOhLY=4wORaAsWBTZyUEc2+kCA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002101d1a342$c93e3000$5bba9000$@iname.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20160502003646.101fc9c8@resistor.net> <CABuGu1qf8tdzvwy+fhaTqKNyKQ1L0San8f54Cu-XbZXDLwn8fw@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20160502093100.0878c9f0@elandnews.com> <CAL0qLwYKQBithC4E7iZY_PXcQOhLY=4wORaAsWBTZyUEc2+kCA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 08:37:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CABuGu1oW=p+Kj8OK0qFHuPgsg9uhZ1+FumiXff0Ltuecu5aBRg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kurt Andersen <kurta@drkurt.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134b422227ef40532060170
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/h8kFh_egkbsCB2SpZZMiynYWCOI>
Cc: "spfbis@ietf.org" <spfbis@ietf.org>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Frank Bulk <frnkblk@iname.com>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Question about SPF checks based on RFC 7208
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 04 May 2016 15:43:12 -0000

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>;
wrote:

> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:48 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>; wrote:
>
>> My suggestion is to clarify exactly what constitutes a "void DNS lookup"
>>> in the case of an MX mechanism. I suggest that we define a void MX lookup
>>> to be one that either returns no records or returns the "null MX record"
>>> (RFC7505). Could this be done as an erratum item?
>>
>>
>> Please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php for information about
>> how to report an erratum and how the erratum will be processed.  The above
>> might be too much for an erratum.
>
>
> I guess we used the term in the lists but the definition never made it
> into the document.  Damn.
>
> Anyway, I support logging an erratum for this if that's the main issue.
> Who knows if and when there will be enough energy and interest to do an
> update.
>
> -MSK
>

I'll have to go back and research the usage of the term in the spfbis
mailing lists. I'll follow up with a note here once I have a proposal with
concrete wording.

--Kurt