Re: Mailing list SPF Failure

On Fri, 2024-05-17 at 08:13 +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > On 17/05/2024 5:45, Karl Auer wrote: > > https://support.google.com/a/answer/81126 > > I think some may have missed these announcements: > > https://labs.ripe.net/author/fergalc/enhancing-email-delivery-at-the-ripe-ncc/ > > https://blog

Re: Mailing list SPF Failure

On 17/05/2024 5:45, Karl Auer wrote: On Thu, 2024-05-16 at 19:27 -0700, Michael Thomas wrote: On 5/16/24 7:22 PM, Scott Q. wrote: Mike, you do realize Google/Gmail rejects e-mails with invalid/missing SPF right ? I was receiving the mail while NANOG had no SPF record, so no? Any receiver would

Re: Mailing list SPF Failure

uot;Scott Q." Using Group-Office To: Michael Thomas , nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Mailing list SPF Failure SPF: NONE with IP 50.31.151.76 Learn more Message ID <74b33cf0-b7c4-46ac-8154-1cfca082e...@mtcc.com> Created at: Thu, May 16, 2024 at 2:13 PM (Delivered after 85 seconds) From: Mich

Re: Mailing list SPF Failure

On Thu, 2024-05-16 at 19:27 -0700, Michael Thomas wrote: > On 5/16/24 7:22 PM, Scott Q. wrote: > > Mike, you do realize Google/Gmail rejects e-mails with > > invalid/missing SPF right ? > > I was receiving the mail while NANOG had no SPF record, so no? Any > receiver would be really stupid take a

Re: Mailing list SPF Failure

On 5/16/24 7:36 PM, John R. Levine wrote: I think a lot of us have nanog whitelisted or otherwise special cased. I don't and gmail is my backend. That's trivial falsification that lack of an SPF records alone will cause gmail rejects. Mike Also, it's been pumping out list mail for decad

Re: Mailing list SPF Failure

> > I'm surprised nobody noticed for close to 10 days. Probably because it wasn't 10 days. On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 10:26 PM Scott Q. wrote: > I'm surprised nobody noticed for close to 10 days. I was away from work > and upon coming back I saw the little discussion there was , in my Spam > fold

Re: Mailing list SPF Failure

I think a lot of us have nanog whitelisted or otherwise special cased. Also, it's been pumping out list mail for decades and I expect has a close to zero complaint rate so even without the SPF ths IPs it sends from have a good reputation. On Thu, 16 May 2024, Scott Q. wrote: I'm surprised n

Re: Mailing list SPF Failure

On 5/16/24 7:22 PM, Scott Q. wrote: Mike, you do realize Google/Gmail rejects e-mails with invalid/missing SPF right ? I was receiving the mail while NANOG had no SPF record, so no? Any receiver would be really stupid take a single signal as disqualifying. Mike If you want to tell them

Re: Mailing list SPF Failure

I'm surprised nobody noticed for close to 10 days. I was away from work and upon coming back I saw the little discussion there was , in my Spam folder. On Thursday, 16/05/2024 at 18:56 John R. Levine wrote: On Thu, 16 May 2024, William Herrin wrote: > The message content (including the message

Re: Mailing list SPF Failure

On 5/16/24 3:54 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 12:03 PM John Levine wrote: It appears that Michael Thomas said: Since probably 99% of the mail from NANOG is through this list, it hardly matters since SPF will always fail. Sorry, but no. A mailing list puts its own envelo

Re: Mailing list SPF Failure

On Thu, 16 May 2024, William Herrin wrote: The message content (including the message headers) is theoretically not used for SPF validation. In practice, some SPF validators don't have direct access to the SMTP session so they rely on the SMTP session placing the envelope sender in the Return-pat

Re: Mailing list SPF Failure

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 12:03 PM John Levine wrote: > It appears that Michael Thomas said: > >Since probably 99% of the mail from NANOG is through this list, it > >hardly matters since SPF will always fail. > > Sorry, but no. A mailing list puts its own envelope return address on > the message so

Re: Mailing list SPF Failure

It appears that Michael Thomas said: >On 5/16/24 8:11 AM, Peter Potvin via NANOG wrote: >> Appears there’s no SPF record at all now for nanog.org >> , which is not ideal… > >Since probably 99% of the mail from NANOG is through this list, it >hardly matters since SPF will always

Re: Mailing list SPF Failure

On 5/16/24 8:59 AM, Scott Q. wrote: Uhm, not really. An SPF failure is really bad even though DKIM works. It might depend what they do with DMARC but even so, there's no reason they can't just add that IP to their SPF record. SPF has from day one been known to be broken with mailing lists. It

Re: Mailing list SPF Failure

Uhm, not really. An SPF failure is really bad even though DKIM works. It might depend what they do with DMARC but even so, there's no reason they can't just add that IP to their SPF record. >From what I see, it's been broken at least since May 6-7. On Thursday, 16/05/2024 at 11:37 Michael Thomas

Re: Mailing list SPF Failure

On 5/16/24 8:11 AM, Peter Potvin via NANOG wrote: Appears there’s no SPF record at all now for nanog.org , which is not ideal… Since probably 99% of the mail from NANOG is through this list, it hardly matters since SPF will always fail. What is more important is that they r

Re: Mailing list SPF Failure

Appears there’s no SPF record at all now for nanog.org, which is not ideal… Kind regards, Peter Potvin On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 02:59 Bjørn Mork wrote: > "Scott Q." writes: > > > Anyone else getting SPF failures on all messages sent to the list > > ? > > > > I see them all originating from 50.

Re: Mailing list SPF Failure

"Scott Q." writes: > Anyone else getting SPF failures on all messages sent to the list > ? > > I see them all originating from 50.31.151.76 but nanog.org's SPF > record doesn't list that as allowed. I see the same. nanog.org mail is originated from 2001:1838:2001:8:0:0:0:20 or 50.31.151.76, and

Re: Mailing list SPF Failure

Let us see… -mel beckman > On May 15, 2024, at 7:47 PM, Scott Q. wrote: > >  Anyone else getting SPF failures on all messages sent to the list ? > > I see them all originating from 50.31.151.76 but nanog.org's SPF record > doesn't list that as allowed. >

Mailing list SPF Failure

Anyone else getting SPF failures on all messages sent to the list ? I see them all originating from 50.31.151.76 but nanog.org's SPF record doesn't list that as allowed.