headers
spf-discuss | 6 Jul 2008 07:00
Favicon

SPF Mail Summary Report

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

                        Mail Forum Statistics                         
                Date Range : 24 Jun 2008 - 30 Jun 2008
                Report Date: 06 Jul 2008

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

Total Forums          : 2
Total Messages        : 11
Total Participants    : 10
Total Vendor Postings : 0
Total Mail/No Replies : 4  (36%)
          6+ Days Old : 4    4+ Days Old: 0
          2+ Days Old : 0    1 Day Old  : 0
Busiest Posting Hour  : 9am  (3 msgs)
Busiest Posting Day   : Tuesday  (6 msgs)

+-[ Hourly Posting Pattern ]----------------------+
|                   * *                           |
|                   * *                           |
|                   * *                           |
|                   * *                           |
|                   * *   *                       |
|                   * *   *                       |
|                   * *   *                       |
|           *       * *   *         *   *         |
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 8 Jul 2008 04:23
Picon
Picon

FYI: 2821bis examples

Hi, for info, IIRC some folks here have strong preferences
wrt example addresses in RFCs and elsewhere.  On the SMTP
list Tony asked:

| John has said to me that he's always been willing to
| change the non-example domain names to 2606 example
| domain names.

| Now that the appeal is done and out of the way, do people
| prefer

| 1) none of the domain names be changed?
| 2) all domain names be changed, except Jon Postel's isi.edu
|    and usc.edu references
| 3) all domain names be changed

| I would like to get a quick consensus call for this question.
| Please respond by Thursday, July 10.
.........^^^^^^^
That is "respond to his original message", *NOT* to this info.

 Frank
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Scott Kitterman | 8 Jul 2008 04:43

Re: FYI: 2821bis examples

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:23:04 +0200 "Frank Ellermann" 
<hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi, for info, IIRC some folks here have strong preferences
>wrt example addresses in RFCs and elsewhere.  On the SMTP
>list Tony asked:
>
>| John has said to me that he's always been willing to
>| change the non-example domain names to 2606 example
>| domain names.
>
>| Now that the appeal is done and out of the way, do people
>| prefer
>
>| 1) none of the domain names be changed?
>| 2) all domain names be changed, except Jon Postel's isi.edu
>|    and usc.edu references
>| 3) all domain names be changed
>
>| I would like to get a quick consensus call for this question.
>| Please respond by Thursday, July 10.
>.........^^^^^^^
>That is "respond to his original message", *NOT* to this info.
>

I pick 4: Don't mutilate any examples that appeared in 2821.  For new 
examples either reuse domains from existing examples or use domains in 
example.* based on what author believes is least confusing.

The notion that contuing to use domain names in 2821bis that have long 
appeared in 2821 will cause damage to the internet is nonsense.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 8 Jul 2008 05:40
Picon
Picon

Re: FYI: 2821bis examples

Scott Kitterman wrote:

> I pick 4: Don't mutilate any examples that appeared in 2821.

LOL.  This might be a variant of (1).

> I'm unwilling to try out the IETF's TMDA system.

I'm not aware that the SMTP list or Tony use any C/R system.

Some IETF lists might do this for articles from unsubscribed
posters.  Gmane does it for the first article from address x
in group y.   

> Users of challenge/response systems get no mail from me.

Works for me after an SPF PASS.  Some days ago the confusing
listbox magic sent me about five on topic "webmaster" mails
posted in March to May "for moderation".  All older than the 
seven days for auto-expiration, "approve" didn't work.  

 Frank
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 10 Jul 2008 18:04
Picon
Picon

Re: spf and gmail

> Hi, I'm mainly checking that SPF Help is really working again
> via GMaNe after some months...

> Gmail now rejects broken or missing DKIM signatures for PayPal
> phishes, hopefully they'll also reject SPF FAIL at some point
[...]

Good, works again, and triggered four out of office mails from
unknown strangers:  Spamcopped with "OOO mail in violation of
RFC 3834 and maybe also RFC 5230".

 Frank
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
SODATONOU Dodji Comlan Samuel | 14 Jul 2008 20:59

Help of SPF Implementations on exim


Hello

I am new to SPF and i install exim with SPF supports.
 After the install i add the following line in the rcpt acl of my exim configuration 
file

deny message = $sender_host_address is not allowed to send mail from 
$sender_address_domain 
log_message = SPF check failded 
spf = fail 

This configuration can permit to test a fail forgery attemps from domains wich publish 
SPF records.(example aol.com)

A furgery aol mail from host 41.207.177.17 to  my server give this error

"SPF result is unknown (permanent error) (7)"

**** SMTP testing session as if from host 41.207.177.17
**** but without any ident (RFC 1413) callback.
**** This is not for real!

>>> host in hosts_connection_nolog? no (option unset)
>>> host in host_lookup? yes (matched "*")
>>> looking up host name for 41.207.177.17
>>> IP address lookup yielded mail.togotel.net.tg
>>>   alias tgt1.togotel.net.tg
>>>   alias quota.togotel.net.tg
mail >>> gethostbyname looked up these IP addresses:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 14 Jul 2008 21:18
Picon
Picon

SPF EAI -01

Hi, a new draft should be soon available at the usual places
including <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ellermann-spf-eai>

With fresh ideas for obscure corner cases, what do existing
SPF implementations with quoted pairs (backslashes) ?

 Frank
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter Bowyer | 15 Jul 2008 07:21
Gravatar

Re: Help of SPF Implementations on exim

2008/7/14 SODATONOU Dodji  Comlan Samuel <sam <at> trstech.net>:
> Any help in order to resolve this problem will be appreciated.

You already started a thread on exim-users, which is where the experts
in Exim + SPF are. Best keep the conversation over there.

Peter

--

-- 
Peter Bowyer
Email: peter <at> bowyer.org
Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee
Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
spf-discuss | 20 Jul 2008 07:00
Favicon

SPF Mail Summary Report

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

                        Mail Forum Statistics                         
                Date Range : 14 Jul 2008 - 19 Jul 2008
                Report Date: 20 Jul 2008

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

Total Forums          : 2
Total Messages        : 48
Total Participants    : 18
Total Vendor Postings : 0
Total Mail/No Replies : 5  (10%)
          6+ Days Old : 0    4+ Days Old: 3
          2+ Days Old : 1    1 Day Old  : 1
Busiest Posting Hour  : 11am  (8 msgs)
Busiest Posting Day   : Thursday  (18 msgs)

+-[ Hourly Posting Pattern ]----------------------+
|                       * *                       |
|                       * *                       |
|                       * *                       |
|                       * *                       |
|                       * *           *           |
|                       * * * *   *   *           |
|                       * * * *   *   *           |
|                   *   * * * *   * * *           |
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 20 Jul 2008 16:51
Picon
Picon

Re: Re: SPF and Google Groups (sending on behalf of)

Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote on the help list:

> there's one specific entity which takes our carefully
> crafted SPF records and then {ab|re}uses them for their
> own incompatible protocol: SenderID.

From time to time a fresh SenderID bashing is good, and
the three or four folks answering that question on the
help list all checked if it *could* be realted to this
issue.  

But it clearly was not, and your idea that SenderID PRA
might do strange things with an X-Sender: header field
was, hm, strange.  IMO users confronted with wrong SPF
results are entitled to ask questions on the help list,
and sending them away claiming that it's no SPF problem
if SenderID does strange things can only make sense if
their problem clearly is an effect of SenderID.  

But this wasn't the case.  Even if it turns out that the
implementation did the less plausible thing, and checked
X-Sender instead of 2822-From, there was a good PRA for
a SenderID PASS, and a good MAIL FROM for an SPF PASS.

The implementation is broken, it got FAIL, based on the
2822-From or maybe the equivalent X-Sender.

> If implementors get it wrong when parsing the various
> headers with all their if-then-else decisions, that's
> indirectly the fault of this other protocol, not ours.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |

Gmane