IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tools-discuss] SPF rejection of mail to chairs

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 28 February 2020 05:55 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92E973A10CF for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 21:55:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 r4qjiY9Pgo3A for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 21:55:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 870073A10CC for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 21:55:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.147] (p548DC4D8.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.196.216]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48TJfF0bDhz10p1; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 06:55:01 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <e5197be8-7498-f3f7-66cc-3efa3391e43e@bluepopcorn.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 06:55:00 +0100
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, tools-discuss@ietf.org, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 604562100.5679801-2bd172e5de8fe9ff5732ef5416bd8aaf
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CECE482A-92A7-4A6F-A72C-DCDCDB25FFDC@tzi.org>
References: <RT-Ticket-282330@www.ietf.org/rt> <20191121040335.A47AD120944@ietfa.amsl.com> <253406B7-7911-4971-9ED5-D836606D3B6A@tzi.org> <rt-4.4.2-17081-1574310971-201.282330-4-0@www.ietf.org/rt> <CABL0ig51Bfs5w94vnZnTBQaQ+mC5+Vjett61Cs1d0sc_DpFsXA@mail.gmail.com> <9898.1574329972@dooku.sandelman.ca> <A7C5D382-FDE4-4EB7-9463-FB2E0884920C@tzi.org> <96dbab15-2b11-4114-8ad0-690047430d68@nostrum.com> <DB2BE9AA-1018-44B0-B926-AF27427B4577@tzi.org> <0C8935E8-7693-4FAE-85DF-33408D297F15@tzi.org> <7f34680e-4fe8-cf17-a0e9-d3696d509a6f@nostrum.com> <73AA0A63-585C-4612-9995-D9CAF79F79FD@tzi.org> <36ad6759-0bce-ad05-d42c-abdd2083781c@bluepopcorn.net> <8A4D0737-333F-4801-85DA-3FA07D8C9767@tzi.org> <e5197be8-7498-f3f7-66cc-3efa3391e43e@bluepopcorn.net>
To: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.5)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/6NxyDVk68bdNQaoeajJSv4dz0Jg>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] SPF rejection of mail to chairs
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 05:55:10 -0000

On 2020-02-28, at 00:08, Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> wrote:
> 
> You're saying that this rejection is actually due to SPF and not DMARC
> then? If that were the case, it would be a lot easier to remediate (just
> rewrite the envelope-from address to a different domain). DMARC binds to
> the From header field, which requires the much uglier rewriting we're
> all seeing.

I’m not an expert in nomenclature for ways of making email not work, so I have instead included an example of the rejection that AMSL sees when I send mail to IETF aliases.
(I probably should collect them more rigorously, as there may be different situations in other cases.)

Grüße, Carsten


<ietf@augustcellars.com> (expanded from <expand-cbor-chairs@virtual.ietf.org>):
   host cloud8.spamtitan.com[13.58.8.62] said: 550 5.7.1 SPF Policy Rejection
   t=ietf@augustcellars.com, s=mfrom, id=cabo@tzi.org (in reply to RCPT TO
   command)
Reporting-MTA: dns; ietfa.amsl.com
X-Postfix-Queue-ID: 42C173A0CFD
X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822; cabo@tzi.org
Arrival-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 09:13:40 -0800 (PST)

Final-Recipient: rfc822; ietf@augustcellars.com
Original-Recipient: rfc822;expand-cbor-chairs@virtual.ietf.org
Action: failed
Status: 5.7.1
Remote-MTA: dns; cloud8.spamtitan.com
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.7.1 SPF Policy Rejection t=ietf@augustcellars.com,
   s=mfrom, id=cabo@tzi.org

From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Interim today
Date: 2020-02-26 at 18:13:33 CET
To: CBOR Working Group <cbor-chairs@ietf.org>
Cc: "cbor@ietf.org" <cbor@ietf.org>
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org>
Resent-To: ietf@augustcellars.com, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email