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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Wed, 04 May 2016 05:16 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 D2E8912D0A3 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 May 2016 22:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 OPOHf6vGUmh8 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 May 2016 22:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22a.google.com (mail-yw0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22a]) (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 002DD12D0C1 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 May 2016 22:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id g133so58222311ywb.2 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 May 2016 22:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
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; bh=2/mPz2D3G0X4vBsYgkUsFxsC9mXZLVUDvYk9u/bMN20=; b=ohb4mNFk5a/lBV6O1nMf4jw6bwlajgCshSEl1EjKQ5MuTJeaQ+P3b7F3V+gacIoLro ZG1qot1rnuRWh9Efw1zZeYe+nky2t2w69TCBYS+lYnIxolKxUm05hN6sqfKGoGb3g15R KuIvsQbYcQNcuNk/75eYpe9rkjPfnlftAdnMBnNVkFcWnJLUzcL/+3/nJlDGQUYtWGTi A0gKwH6cwDkYTeUPgbi6rVauycaYTVAURSO/5rU1fgmGTF6NJliEn/KUqpQDncMb7uVo Xam/6gKyCmpAg4txJzGLH7hAwZjEU2zA7dZzsTVZQHehK1qqc0tSxjU+aLakWE86BFBo rQgA==
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=2/mPz2D3G0X4vBsYgkUsFxsC9mXZLVUDvYk9u/bMN20=; b=WHWo112+hFvnaPgF5MxpHW152mTUKbKJe2vgzpJ43XjWBIA7pI0XgN0ePyLAVWqVKy WpRSmyYqzbHge53u1Chsph0GuVW+mqSKzbWqja4B0NCwY2ovJ/xWyEYJ6fWQf2CCb398 2ksQ86JdzKlDxibzbRl2yg132Cq03m5jHFQRFqdlUnYeaaXBbLFCXLZ6wdTZAalhhL+u xCNW4t+9spVNTMed/3ojhbivQHmMReAnYi1SPx4sAH87rCQdjUcXQr5i8fDw+zRA3TCK gmBrZVaKCooN9iNvtPVWBB5pryMG5lmafi2jZj3crCMdt2w00PBpmumBhZSe0IXeUpl7 DX7A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUk/J/O/Jqy5+8kIZmA5p+xGJrhhJBq9bOOiJmNpPmH5RgjyMWVQ3PsSPweiB/Lq7QIzuSuk4FoFUBDBQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.159.38.75 with SMTP id 69mr3588829uag.139.1462338969260; Tue, 03 May 2016 22:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.103.43.5 with HTTP; Tue, 3 May 2016 22:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20160502093100.0878c9f0@elandnews.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>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 22:16:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYKQBithC4E7iZY_PXcQOhLY=4wORaAsWBTZyUEc2+kCA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113e4aa8cdd9260531fd523a
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/rm6WNst5EbrlUifzTXORj4PdzGo>
Cc: "spfbis@ietf.org" <spfbis@ietf.org>, Kurt Andersen <kurta@drkurt.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 05:16:12 -0000

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