[dmarc-discuss] SPF Check issue on Gmail

Anshul Agrawal anshulagrawal at gmail.com
Thu Jul 25 10:10:05 PDT 2013


Thanks, Olga. Your response helped :)

This list definitely gives an amazing platform to voice concerns and
feedback which would otherwise get lost.

Cheers!


On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 10:25 PM, J. Trent Adams <jtrentadams at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> I just wanted to take a moment to thank everyone on this list for their
> participation in the conversation.
>
> Folks like Anshul bringing up problems and then Olga closing the loop
> like this is why the list exists.  The operational experience and
> responsiveness of this community is really amazing.
>
> Thank you all for your ongoing contributions.
>
> Yours,
> Trent
>
>
> On 7/25/13 10:40 AM, Olga Gavrylyako wrote:
> > Hi Anshul,
> > We had a bug, where in
> > <spf>
> >         <domain>pm.mtasv.net <http://pm.mtasv.net></domain>
> >         <result>pass</result>
> >  </spf>
> >
> >  we reported result of spf pass for DMARC authentication (spf pass +
> > alignment), instead of just raw SPF pass. We fixed it this week and
> > rolling to production.  You are lucky, you hit the day where both
> > reporting version were alive at some moment of time :)
> > Starting tomorrow, there will be no such discrepancy.
> > Olga
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Anshul Agrawal
> > <anshulagrawal at gmail.com <mailto:anshulagrawal at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Attaching the Aggregate Report received today from Google. The SPF
> >     'auth_results' are marked as 'fail' for all the IPs however it
> >     should pass. Yahoo and Hotmail reports it fine.
> >
> >     For auth_results, RFC says "This element contains DKIM and SPF
> >     results, uninterpreted with respect to DMARC."
> >
> >     Can someone help identify the issue? Attaching the aggregated
> >     report from google and hotmail.
> >
> >     Thanks,
> >     Anshul
> >
> >
> >     On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Anshul Agrawal
> >     <anshulagrawal at gmail.com <mailto:anshulagrawal at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >         Hi,
> >         I have turned on the DMARC in monitor mode and started
> >         receiving the reports from Yahoo, Google, and Hotmail. The
> >         third party ESP we use has proper SPF records in place and
> >         uses our DKIM ket to sign the mail.
> >
> >         Google seems to report, for the same IP and 'Return-Path'
> >         domain, SPF fail and pass in the same report. Moreover, one
> >         day, all the IPs were reported to fail the SPF check.
> >
> >         Note that in the below messages, SPF checks fail for far more
> >         number of times than it is regarded as pass. However, all the
> >         test mails that I have sent to Gmail, all of them show SPF
> >         pass so far when I check headers and have never failed.
> >
> >           <record>
> >             <row>
> >               <source_ip>50.31.156.116</source_ip>
> >               <count>15</count>
> >         ...
> >         ...
> >               <spf>
> >                 <domain>pm.mtasv.net <http://pm.mtasv.net></domain>
> >                 <result>fail</result>
> >               </spf>
> >             </auth_results>
> >           </record>
> >
> >         And
> >
> >           <record>
> >             <row>
> >               <source_ip>50.31.156.116</source_ip>
> >               <count>2</count>
> >         ...
> >         ...
> >               <spf>
> >                 <domain>pm.mtasv.net <http://pm.mtasv.net></domain>
> >                 <result>pass</result>
> >               </spf>
> >             </auth_results>
> >           </record>
> >
> >         IMHO given the same IP and domain, SPF check should not fail
> >         for some pass for other requests (given the DNS records are
> >         not updated)
> >
> >         Am I missing something?
> >
> >         Thanks,
> >         Anshul
> >
> >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     dmarc-discuss mailing list
> >     dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org <mailto:dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org>
> >     http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
> >
> >     NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note
> >     Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dmarc-discuss mailing list
> > dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org
> > http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
> >
> > NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well
> terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
>
> --
> J. Trent Adams
>
> Profile: http://www.mediaslate.org/jtrentadams/
> LinkedIN: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jtrentadams
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/jtrentadams
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc-discuss mailing list
> dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org
> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
>
> NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well
> terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.dmarc.org/pipermail/dmarc-discuss/attachments/20130725/b6bb278c/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the dmarc-discuss mailing list