| MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
| X-Spam-Flag: | NO |
| Acceptlanguage: | en-US |
| content-type: | text/plain; charset="utf-8" |
| X-Virus-Scanned: | Debian amavisd-new at bestpractical.com |
| X-Ems-Stamp: | SAigVPiz5BQX/1WwrGWKyQ== |
| X-Spam-Score: | -5.911 |
| Received: | from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hipster.bestpractical.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BDB62417E8 for <cpan-bug+mail-spf [...] hipster.bestpractical.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 20:13:29 -0400 (EDT) |
| Received: | from hipster.bestpractical.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hipster.bestpractical.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 41LHKP0nYYF8 for <cpan-bug+mail-spf [...] hipster.bestpractical.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 20:13:27 -0400 (EDT) |
| Received: | from la.mx.develooper.com (x1.develooper.com [207.171.7.70]) by hipster.bestpractical.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7215C241754 for <bug-mail-spf [...] rt.cpan.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 20:13:27 -0400 (EDT) |
| Received: | (qmail 29285 invoked by uid 103); 30 Mar 2011 00:13:26 -0000 |
| Received: | from x16.dev (10.0.100.26) by x1.dev with QMQP; 30 Mar 2011 00:13:26 -0000 |
| Received: | from mail.corp.returnpath.net (HELO mail.corp.returnpath.net) (38.109.196.9) by 16.mx.develooper.com (qpsmtpd/0.80/v0.80-19-gf52d165) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:13:22 -0700 |
| Received: | from mail.corp.returnpath.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.corp.returnpath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 897E52501E9; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 18:13:19 -0600 (MDT) |
| Received: | from rpcoex01.rpcorp.local (unknown [10.0.1.142]) by mail.corp.returnpath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 809F2250199; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:13:19 +0000 (UTC) |
| Received: | from rpcoex01.rpcorp.local ([10.0.1.142]) by rpcoex01.rpcorp.local ([10.0.1.142]) with mapi; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 18:12:29 -0600 |
| Authentication-Results: | hipster.bestpractical.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass header.i= [...] returnpath.net |
| Authentication-Results: | hipster.bestpractical.com (amavisd-new); domainkeys=pass header.from=jdfalk [...] returnpath.net |
| Delivered-To: | cpan-bug+mail-spf [...] hipster.bestpractical.com |
| Subject: | spf2 record includes spf1 record |
| Thread-Index: | AcvubyghXnZnTjJUQ0CB2rKGp+2DNQ== |
| X-Spam-Check-BY: | 16.mx.develooper.com |
| Dkim-Signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=returnpath.net; h=from:to :date:subject:message-id:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version; s=selector1; bh=bHRF9Wmy6svxM1QaXekn9EdBZMc=; b=M hQ0xTAOQZ6ayxJcC/FN+uoteivelaBbKCh7m5Dr5Hr4mBDEGMD+oBUbCtxJInhbW Jgcjzn1tlNktbffSD1QFC2rVeX5EnSM/FL/Aeiv9qIF7ZIY/RFeIYNhVO+gQk7r1 kkIrAMx+BidR0cgacv+cnbDDTQvnhzKqn4tq4wjk10= |
| Date: | Tue, 29 Mar 2011 18:13:16 -0600 |
| X-Spam-Level: | |
| To: | "bug-mail-spf [...] rt.cpan.org" <bug-mail-spf [...] rt.cpan.org> |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: | quoted-printable |
| From jdfalk [...] returnpath.net Tue Mar 29 20: | 13:29 2011 |
| X-Ems-Proccessed: | Yma8eInq5qTp77FzNR/WDA== |
| X-Spam-Status: | No, score=-5.911 tagged_above=-99.9 required=10 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_GREY=0.424] autolearn=ham |
| Content-Language: | en-US |
| Message-ID: | <C9B7C3AC.1234B%jdfalk [...] returnpath.net> |
| X-MS-Tnef-Correlator: | |
| User-Agent: | Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115 |
| Domainkey-Signature: | a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=returnpath.net; h=from:to :date:subject:message-id:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version; q=dns; s=selector1; b=OXnisgTZIgwW0ZCWJqOnD0SpDE5 qRT2RJpwOJudlUC2+heRmA8rnYCWKU0mO5bXF2Ae1RRIJP28MXzCfkWPTjh4qVNI FhRqubQEh7jmCXp4b+GiMJWdlzM8iq4yCgJ8fRgtmj41kWFVNVBezEm/UM7Puy2q zrmUduIdlerKBEOY= |
| Return-Path: | <jdfalk [...] returnpath.net> |
| X-Original-To: | cpan-bug+mail-spf [...] hipster.bestpractical.com |
| X-RT-Mail-Extension: | mail-spf |
| Thread-Topic: | spf2 record includes spf1 record |
| X-MS-Has-Attach: | |
| Accept-Language: | en-US |
| From: | J D Falk <jdfalk [...] returnpath.net> |
| X-RT-Original-Encoding: | us-ascii |
| Content-Length: | 1526 |
We've run into an interesting issue -- not sure if it's a bug, or a
difference in interpretation.
The spf2.0/pra record for vodafone.it has two include statements:
vodafone.it text = "v=spf1 include:spf1.vodafone.it
include:aspmx.googlemail.com include:t.contactlab.it ~all"
vodafone.it text = "spf2.0/pra include:spf2.vodafone.it
include:aspmx.googlemail.com include:senderid-a.contactlab.it -all"
Google's included record redirects to a record which is only spf1:
aspmx.googlemail.com text = "v=spf1 redirect=_spf.google.com"
_spf.google.com text = "v=spf1 ip4:216.239.32.0/19 ip4:64.233.160.0/19
ip4:66.249.80.0/20 ip4:72.14.192.0/18 ip4:209.85.128.0/17
ip4:66.102.0.0/20 ip4:74.125.0.0/16 ip4:64.18.0.0/20 ip4:207.126.144.0/20
ip4:173.194.0.0/16 ?all"
One possible interpretation is that when processing spf2 records &
includes, spf1 records should be ignored -- we believe that's what
Mail::SPF is doing when it says "Included domain \'aspmx.googlemail.com\'
has no applicable sender policy."
Another is to interpret the included spf1 record the way SenderID
interprets standalone spf1 records, which we're pretty sure is what
Microsoft is doing when they mark the same message as having passed.
But since only Microsoft cares about SenderID these days, our clients want
our tools to act the way theirs do -- and we use Mail::SPF. Is this
behavior configurable? Or is something else going on?
--
J.D. Falk
Editor, The Received: Blog
Return Path Inc.
http://www.returnpath.net/blog/received/