From users-return-117129-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@spamassassin.apache.org Wed Jan 24 23:00:25 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@eu.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@eu.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9692D180630 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 23:00:25 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 86A93160C3C; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:00:25 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F913160C39 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 23:00:24 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 76563 invoked by uid 500); 24 Jan 2018 22:00:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@spamassassin.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list users@spamassassin.apache.org Received: (qmail 76552 invoked by uid 99); 24 Jan 2018 22:00:22 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:00:22 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id E530BC1AA0 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:00:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.997 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dbFN97pqnSq0 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:00:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from NAM03-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03on0061.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.40.61]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 0EAD45F590 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:00:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from SN4PR0801MB3663.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.167.150.146) by SN4PR0801MB3774.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.167.151.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.428.17; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:00:11 +0000 Received: from SN4PR0801MB3663.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::59f9:dcc0:9889:205d]) by SN4PR0801MB3663.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::59f9:dcc0:9889:205d%13]) with mapi id 15.20.0428.019; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:00:11 +0000 From: Vincent Fox To: David Jones , "users@spamassassin.apache.org" Subject: Re: Penalty for no/bad SPF Thread-Topic: Penalty for no/bad SPF Thread-Index: AQHTlR1GbIan0tBEtE+jj3LEZ0HA5aODX0HxgAAKpoCAAAUXxIAABjkAgAAarnQ= Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:00:11 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1516822347.1947.204.camel@gregorie.org> , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=vbfox@ucdavis.edu; x-originating-ip: [168.150.119.144] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1;SN4PR0801MB3774;7:P2cEdFjIsaBJHxUEgSDphn9QfWL0IFX8P9oZtdq2Ecpo/9DFUEzvzfpA+SkCdxmc/JkiyEeKYynk59k2wSMUghHGBxfFEcZDI8yUfYlscHFyFoIzWIABTbicqBLZq8r9YfpsUhqzB/FAYeripZMM303qJnjV9ntKjGhPaVsw2qMA5c25YDDSxEowAUiQMZkVON/Glg8HxeY0vULuR19elOJBEC0BOsu7C/5FimyMWSMySBzaJYdc2Zk3zywZ7KPa x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS; x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 9f061246-7980-46da-f0ff-08d56375d71a x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(8989060)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990040)(5600026)(4604075)(3008032)(2017052603307)(7153060)(7193020);SRVR:SN4PR0801MB3774; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: SN4PR0801MB3774: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(6040501)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(3231023)(11241501184)(2400081)(944501161)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(6041288)(20161123560045)(20161123562045)(201703131423095)(201702281529075)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123564045)(20161123558120)(6072148)(201708071742011);SRVR:SN4PR0801MB3774;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:SN4PR0801MB3774; x-forefront-prvs: 056297E276 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10009020)(376002)(396003)(39380400002)(366004)(346002)(39860400002)(189003)(199004)(55016002)(110136005)(53546011)(6506007)(606006)(316002)(25786009)(19273905006)(102836004)(6246003)(786003)(99286004)(6436002)(45080400002)(186003)(5250100002)(2501003)(7736002)(966005)(14454004)(229853002)(93886005)(478600001)(54896002)(66066001)(33656002)(53936002)(88552002)(2906002)(8676002)(3846002)(8936002)(81156014)(3480700004)(81166006)(75432002)(2900100001)(6116002)(74316002)(7696005)(106356001)(3660700001)(9686003)(76176011)(2950100002)(6306002)(6606003)(236005)(86362001)(97736004)(3280700002)(68736007)(19627405001)(5660300001)(26005)(105586002)(59450400001)(562404015)(563064011);DIR:OUT;SFP:1101;SCL:1;SRVR:SN4PR0801MB3774;H:SN4PR0801MB3663.namprd08.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;PTR:InfoNoRecords;MX:1;A:1;LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ucdavis.edu does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: clBQwzYD13pWPLth98YCWeCxy76FDcxMs7/OiprPFWEJuvc+/iFba1eNrJI3xGqQnNWdKK5N/ixIaE53RZklcQ== spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_SN4PR0801MB3663815FB3ACD549F85F4908BAE20SN4PR0801MB3663_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: ucdavis.edu X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9f061246-7980-46da-f0ff-08d56375d71a X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 Jan 2018 22:00:11.3046 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: a8046f64-66c0-4f00-9046-c8daf92ff62b X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN4PR0801MB3774 --_000_SN4PR0801MB3663815FB3ACD549F85F4908BAE20SN4PR0801MB3663_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable so there's this argument that goes: "well we won't really see the benefits until it's FULLY and RIGIDLY impleme= nted." However, look at all the major providers with messed up records and neutral= or soft fail. They should have the most resources to accomplish this and= the most incentives to list all their netblocks and set to hard fail. Google is soft fail. Hotmail is soft fail. (etc etc ad nauseum) I rest my case. After 14+ years we are still having this ridiculous argument about how in 1= 4 MORE years when we finally fully implement this flawed technology, it'll = do something useful. Meanwhile i see it as being more risk than benefit. Frankly I'd rather these manhours be used on having correct A & PTR records= , which seems to be beyond the pale for some bulkmail vendors. ________________________________ From: David Jones Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 12:12:56 PM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Penalty for no/bad SPF On 01/24/2018 01:58 PM, Vincent Fox wrote: > I'd rather not think about the manhours I've wasted this year on SPF. > > > The guy at Evotec.com, among others, who thinks rejecting > > for SOFTFAIL is a perfectly valid anti-spoofing strategy and > > doesn't blink when pointed to RFC 4408 sec 2.5.5. > > > Vendors who's first response is: > > "Our LEGIT spam....errr bulkmail is ending in your Junk. Response > > #1 in our binder is you MUST list us in your SPF record." > > Dig, dig, dig maillogs. All emails using Envelope From properly > > so SPF is a waste of everyone's time. > The Internet is very slow to change. It takes a large force like Google to improve things slowly over time. They are doing good work in the TLS and browser encryption area. SA could be the large force that helps improve the mail standards like DMARC -- SPF + DKIM with a little extra on top. > > Records we included to ours, where the vendor makes a typo in > > THEIR SPF record on a Friday night. Or decides to add 9 sub-includes. > > Either way our record suddenly returning PERMERROR and we > > have to get someone in, and boot vendor off the island on a Sunday. > I have a script that checks all of our customer's SPF records for syntax problems and too many DNS lookups based on pyspf just like http://www.kitterman.com/spf/validate.html does so I can correct it or notify them immediately. > > Endless hours explaining to campus clients, what SPF is and why > If SA all around the world says the same thing you are telling them then they will have to listen and fix their problem or remove their SPF record which is better than having an incorrect one. > it is not a good primary strategy to solve Junk mail issues > > The only good thing I have to say about SPF, is it seems to > > be a permanent employment program for people who are > > otherwise useless. > -- David Jones --_000_SN4PR0801MB3663815FB3ACD549F85F4908BAE20SN4PR0801MB3663_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

so there's this argument that goe= s:


"well we won't really see th= e benefits until it's FULLY and RIGIDLY implemented."


However, look at all the major pr= oviders with messed up records and neutral or soft fail.  They should = have the most resources to accomplish  this and the most incentives to= list all their netblocks and set to hard fail.


Google is soft fail.

Hotmail is soft fail.

(etc etc ad nauseum)


I rest my case.


After 14+ years we are still having this ridiculous argument about how = in 14 MORE years when we finally fully implement this flawed technology, it= 'll do something useful.  Meanwhile i see it as being more risk than b= enefit.


Frankly I'd rather these manhours be used on having correct A & PTR rec= ords, which seems to be beyond the pale for some bulkmail vendors.



From: David Jones <djone= s@ena.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 12:12:56 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Penalty for no/bad SPF
 
On 01/24/2018 01:58 PM, Vincent Fox wrote:
> I'd rather not think about the manhours I've wasted this year on = SPF.
>
>
> The guy at Evotec.com, among others, who thinks rejecting
>
> for SOFTFAIL is a perfectly valid anti-spoofing strategy and
>
> doesn't blink when pointed to RFC 4408 sec 2.5.5.
>
>
> Vendors who's first response is:
>
> "Our LEGIT spam....errr bulkmail is ending in your Junk.  Re= sponse
>
> #1 in our binder is you MUST list us in your SPF record."
>
> Dig, dig, dig maillogs.  All emails using Envelope From properly<= br> >
> so SPF is a waste of everyone's time.
>

The Internet is very slow to change.  It takes a large force like Goog= le
to improve things slowly over time.  They are doing good work in the T= LS
and browser encryption area.  SA could be the large force that helps <= br> improve the mail standards like DMARC -- SPF + DKIM with a little extra=
on top.

>
> Records we included to ours, where the vendor makes a typo in
>
> THEIR SPF record on a Friday night.  Or decides to add 9 sub-incl= udes.
>
> Either way our record suddenly returning PERMERROR and we
>
> have to get someone in, and boot vendor off the island on a Sunda= y.
>

I have a script that checks all of our customer's SPF records for syntax problems and too many DNS lookups based on pyspf just like
http://www.kitterman= .com/spf/validate.html does so I can correct it or
notify them immediately.

>
> Endless hours explaining to campus clients, what SPF is and why
>

If SA all around the world says the same thing you are telling them then they will have to listen and fix their problem or remove their SPF
record which is better than having an incorrect one.

> it is not a good primary strategy to solve Junk mail issues
>
> The only good thing I have to say about SPF, is it seems to
>
> be a permanent employment program for people who are
>
> otherwise useless.
>

--
David Jones
--_000_SN4PR0801MB3663815FB3ACD549F85F4908BAE20SN4PR0801MB3663_--