Review of draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting

I think this is getting close to ready, so I would appreciate it if people 
here would review the draft and provide comments:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting/?include_text=1

Thanks.

Scott K

SPF Mail Summary Report

                    iMail News Gateway Server v3.1                    
          (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc.           

                        Mail Forum Statistics                         
                Date Range : 31 Jan 2012 - 31 Jan 2012
                Report Date: 31 Jan 2012

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Summary:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Forums          : 2
Total Messages        : 0
Total Participants    : 0
Total Vendor Postings : 0
Total Mail/No Replies : 0  (0%)
          6+ Days Old : 0    4+ Days Old: 0
          2+ Days Old : 0    1 Day Old  : 0

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Forum Summary: spf-discuss
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No Messages Posted

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Forum Summary: spf-help
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No Messages Posted

SPF Mail Summary Report

                    iMail News Gateway Server v3.1                    
          (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc.           

                        Mail Forum Statistics                         
                Date Range : 14 Jan 2012 - 01 Jan 1601
                Report Date: 21 Jan 2012

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Summary:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Forums          : 2
Total Messages        : 12
Total Participants    : 8
Total Vendor Postings : 0
Total Mail/No Replies : 1  (8%)
          6+ Days Old : 1    4+ Days Old: 0
          2+ Days Old : 0    1 Day Old  : 0
Busiest Posting Hour  : 8am  (3 msgs)
Busiest Posting Day   : Wednesday  (6 msgs)

+-[ Hourly Posting Pattern ]----------------------+
|                 *                               |
|                 *                               |
|                 *                               |
|                 *                               |
|                 *             *                 |
|                 *             *                 |
|                 *             *                 |
|   * *   *   * * *           * * *               |

ipv6 and spf

fail Please see

http://www.openspf.org/why.html?sender=me%40junc.org&ip=2001%3A470%3A27%3Abb3%3A%3A2&receiver=tools.bevhost.com 
tools.bevhost.com: domain of me <at> junc.org does not designate 
2001:470:27:bb3::2 as permitted sender v=spf1 ip4:2.104.223.8/30 
~ip6:2001:470:27:bb3::2 -all HASH(0x9016f90)

i cant see my error :/

SPF Mail Summary Report

                    iMail News Gateway Server v3.1                    
          (c) Copyright 1996-2005 Santronics Software, Inc.           

                        Mail Forum Statistics                         
                Date Range : 12 Jul 2011 - 01 Jan 1601
                Report Date: 14 Jan 2012

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Summary:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Forums          : 2
Total Messages        : 404
Total Participants    : 65
Total Vendor Postings : 0
Total Mail/No Replies : 38  (9%)
          6+ Days Old : 38   4+ Days Old: 0
          2+ Days Old : 0    1 Day Old  : 0
Busiest Posting Hour  : 12am  (37 msgs)
Busiest Posting Day   : Wednesday  (102 msgs)

+-[ Hourly Posting Pattern ]----------------------+
|                         *                       |
|                         *                       |
|                   *     *                       |
|                   *   * *         *             |
|                   *   * *   *     *             |
|           *       *   * * * * * * *             |
| *         *       * * * * * * * * * * *         |
| *         * *   * * * * * * * * * * * *       * |

MUA, MTA and SPF

We are a regional ISP in the Pacific Northwest and have hundreds of DSL
customers.  We run Postfix on our mail servers and we have all of our DSL
IPs authorized to send mail without having to use MUA authentication.  For
those with email accounts with us and not on our network the MUA must
authenticate.  The problem comes with our network users that are not using
SMTP authentication.  If they do not authenticate, SPF keys in on the IP of
the MUA and gives an SPF error and consequently several customers have their
emails bounced.

I would think that SPF would key in on the IP of the MTA and not the MUA.
All of our MTAs are listed in our SPF RR.  My question then, is this an
error in SPF checks?  If not, is there some sort of "tweak" we are missing
in Postfix for authenticating our users within our IP address space short of
adding all of those IPs to our SPF record?  Or do we need to contact all of
our customers and tell them they must use SMTP authentication?

OK, that was three questions.    I am hoping to get a hit on a "tweak" in
Postfix.

Jesus Duarte

FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-00.txt

I've started this individual submission to correct the SPF entry in the Authentication-Results result
name table from "hardfail" to "fail", to match what RFC4408 (and presumably RFC4408bis) says.  This
corrects an approved erratum against RFC5451.

I suggested this as a first-tier work item for spfbis but there was resistance to doing so for the sake of
keeping its charter lean; since it's really a lightweight effort, I decided to move ahead with it on my own.

Please give it a once over and a thumbs-up if I haven't missed anything.

Thanks,
-MSK

-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.net [http://www.openspf.net]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/ [http://www.listbox.com/member/]

Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/6959934-50ec8f89
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=6959934&id_secret=6959934-b7c4528d
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=6959934&id_secret=6959934-edadf31a&post_id=20120103174619:BF0D83E4-365C-11E1-9C28-DD4E9BF36203
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

From: internet-drafts <at> ietf.org <internet-drafts <at> ietf.org>
Subject: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-00.txt
Date: 2012-01-03 22:43:51 GMT
(Continue reading)

Re: Fwd: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter

Thats fine, and yes Extension are Extensions when mean OPTIONAL. So 
anything new added to the RFC bis, MUST NOT be rammed it down people's 
throat using odd readings of RFC 2119. In other words, people are 
still compliant with SPF and SPF BIS while completely ignoring this 
ILLEGAL CROSS BOUNDARY scope extension.  I don't want to see 
statements like you made recently such as:

        "Put another way, you can't claim compliance with this document
         unless you apply the SHOULD, but extant implementations are
         otherwise completely unaffected.

IOW, you CAN NOT make this cross boundary scope extension a SHOULD for 
SPFBIS if you truly believe what you stated.   If you feel 
differently, then this not BIS work but a new protocol and new mandate 
for a new version of SPF - a different protocol.

--

-- 
Hector, Engineering & Technical Support
Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com (sales)
http://www.winserver.com (support)
http://www.winserver.com/AupInfo (Online AUP Help)

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Scott Kitterman [mailto:spf2 <at> kitterman.com]
>> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 7:07 PM
>> To: spf-discuss <at> listbox.com

Fwd: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter

FYI.  Anyone who's interested in working on updating SPF should really
be subscribed to the SPFbis mailing list.  Since decisions are going to
be made by rough consensus of the people on that list, it would be good
to have more people with a history of involvement in SPF there.

Scott K

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:06:58 -0800
From: Murray S. Kucherawy <msk <at> cloudmark.com>
To: spfbis <at> ietf.org <spfbis <at> ietf.org>

Sorry I'm new to this whole email thing, and I failed to attach it.
It's attached here.

From: spfbis-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:spfbis-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:01 PM
To: spfbis <at> ietf.org
Subject: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter

Hello all, and welcome to the SPFbis mailing list.

As usual, our first order of business is to hash out a charter for the
working group.  Many of you have already seen it privately, and it was
circulated and discussed briefly within the APPS area working group
session in Taipei and its mailing list.  Attached is the latest version,
a product of all of the above.

FW: Welcome to the "spfbis" mailing list

This mailing list is now available.  If you would like to participate in the work, including:

- hammering out the charter for the proposed working group
- reviewing documents
- editing documents
- implementing
- co-chairing the working group

...please subscribe to that list.  I'll post the current charter text there later this week to get things going.

Thanks,
-MSK

-----Original Message-----
From: spfbis-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:spfbis-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of spfbis-request <at> ietf.org
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 1:39 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Subject: Welcome to the "spfbis" mailing list

Welcome to the spfbis <at> ietf.org mailing list! Note Well

Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF
Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity is considered an "IETF
Contribution". Such statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as written and
electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to:

    The IETF plenary session
    The IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG
    Any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group or design team list, or any other
list functioning under IETF auspices

FW: [apps-discuss] Proposed "spfbis" working group charter

If you have feedback about the charter, please submit it to me directly or to the apps-discuss <at> ietf.org
mailing list.

-MSK

-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org [http://www.openspf.org]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/ [http://www.listbox.com/member/]

Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/6959934-50ec8f89
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=6959934&id_secret=6959934-b7c4528d
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=6959934&id_secret=6959934-edadf31a&post_id=20111114004812:3BA5F1C6-0E84-11E1-992F-C1E34E3FB31B
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

As discussed today in the APPSAWG meeting.  Comments welcome.

--- 8< --- snip --- 8< ---

Working Group Name:
	SPF Update (SPFBIS)