From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GhvBs-0005w9-A7 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:42:36 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id kA8Lffpj011353; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 21:41:41 GMT Received: from eric.schwarzvogel.de (eric.schwarzvogel.de [194.97.4.250]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kA8LdKPA013816 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 21:39:20 GMT Received: from klausman by eric.schwarzvogel.de with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Ghv8h-0002Dz-V3 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:39:19 +0100 Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 22:39:19 +0100 From: Tobias Klausmann To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November Message-ID: <20061108213919.GA6032@eric.schwarzvogel.de> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20061101134037.6F126649AC@smtp.gentoo.org> <20061108175413.7a76fd3c@snowdrop.home> <20061108200152.GA4007@mail.lieber.org> <200611082114.27008@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> <4552494D.6040206@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4552494D.6040206@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by robin.gentoo.org id kA8LdKPA013816 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id kA8Lffrb011353 X-Archives-Salt: 56ecd971-b98c-44b0-b2cf-592d6e5676b4 X-Archives-Hash: e6d20f81cbf924f9bbe30f404deea9b5 Hi!=20 On Wed, 08 Nov 2006, Alin Nastac wrote: > Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten=F2 wrote: > > On Wednesday 08 November 2006 21:01, Kurt Lieber wrote: > > =20 > >> So, in other words, spammers aren't abusing anything related to SPF. > >> They're sending mail using forged return-paths and SPF is highlighti= ng > >> that. Which is exactly what SPF is designed to do. > >> =20 > > If I were to send my gentoo mail through a mail.flameeyes.is-a-geek.o= rg, with=20 > > its own SPF record, (I'm not as this is not a "real" domain I have ac= cess to,=20 > > nor a mailserver for what it's worth), with a From: flameeyes@gentoo.= org and=20 > > a Sender: flameeyes@flameeyes.is-a-geek.org, would it be a PASS or a = FAIL in=20 > > SPF? > > > > =20 > It doesn't matter what From, Sender or whatever else in the message hea= der. > The part that counts is the Return-Path (the "mail from:" part of the > SMTP protocol). Or so it should be. As I've written earlier, some very misguided people not only judge the Envelope-From (i.e. "MAIL FROM" in SMTP-Speak, which usually is identical to the header "Return-Path") against SPF, but also the in-mail header From:.=20 Yes, it's downright stupid because it breaks just about nay mailing software I know. Yes, it's used by at least two larger providers in Europe. No, tech support there soesn't think it's a bad idea after I explained it in easy, friendly words. Idiots.=20 Still: there are two things to keep in mind: 1) Do you "just don't care" about the users of those ISPs.=20 2) Does Gentoo as a distro want to "advocate" for the usage of SPF (ever so slightly) with the knowledge that it breaks several things? Regards, Tobias PS: Even without those idiots, SPF breaks pre-delivery forwards. But also said that already and it was illustrated why that happens on the "why SPF isn't quite ideal" page someone mentioned earlier in the thread. PPS: Windmills, anyone? --=20 Never touch a burning system. --=20 gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list