IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] Local macros strike again, was Suggestion...

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Wed, 18 January 2012 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 EAFE411E8085 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:21:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.583
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TRmsIZq+EumY for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:21:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BCF311E8074 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:21:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) by EXCH-HTCAS901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:21:00 -0800
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:21:09 -0800
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "spfbis@ietf.org" <spfbis@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:21:08 -0800
Thread-Topic: [spfbis] Local macros strike again, was Suggestion...
Thread-Index: AczVzobEfQKw/pyVQQGwb8vQr4mLNAAPubSw
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C158E7@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15673@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <4EF8F336.8080508@gathman.org> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C1569C@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <1590867.1quv5UxKKV@scott-latitude-e6320> <4EFCB88A.1080104@mail-abuse.org> <4EFE6F39.90000@isdg.net> <4F0358CC.6030505@mail-abuse.org> <4F03775B.4050905@isdg.net> <4F04E292.9030502@mail-abuse.org> <4F04FB1C.7070302@isdg.net> <4F060E74.2070103@cisco.com> <4F063F09.3030900@isdg.net> <4F06884D.2070509@mail-abuse.org> <4F082861.5080803@tana.it> <4F09269C.6090402@isdg.net> <4F0B0035.3050106@cisco.com> <4F0C9777.1090904@mail-abuse.org> <4F0C9E61.1010306@cisco.com> <4F0DD063.5090103@tana.it> <4F0E0A7E.1040905@isdg.net> <Pine.GSO.4.62.1201111726390.13909@spaz.oit.wmich.edu> <4F10BEED.7050207@mail-abuse.org> <4F10DD94.8040905@isdg.net> <4F1190BB.9080202@mail-abuse.org> <4F16A2FB.3070709@isdg.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F16A2FB.3070709@isdg.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Local macros strike again, was Suggestion...
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 18 Jan 2012 18:21:12 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: spfbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:spfbis-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 2:46 AM
> To: spfbis@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [spfbis] Local macros strike again, was Suggestion...
> 
> > AFAIK, t-online.de never published SPF records.  Some implementers
> > leveraged SPF built-in functions to make "best guesses" about domains
> > lacking SPF records.  This tactic is found in many SPF implementations
> > as it will be for years.
> 
> Who?
> 
> This must be completed isolated.

It's not.  A Google search for "best guess SPF" comes up with numerous records, and I've seen it referenced in white papers.  And I know for a fact that Gmail uses it.

The best definition I've seen is here: http://www.openspf.net/FAQ/Best_guess_record

I think part of the -bis effort should include an appendix that talks about this, albeit informatively, just so that a real consensus definition exists someplace.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email