Mailing List Archive: whitelist_auth and outlook.com

whitelist_auth and outlook.com

May 22, 2020, 1:12 PM

Post #1 of 5 (789 views)

Hi,

We have an email from infrascale.com due to it being tagged with 9
points by KAM_FROM_URIBL_PCCC.

X-Comment: SPF skipped for whitelisted relay domain -
client-ip=40.107.223.96;
helo=nam11-dm6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com;
envelope-from=user@infrascale.com; receiver=recipient@gmail.com

Are people generally whitelisting outlook.com now?

The email passed SPF and DKIM:
* -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
* -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
* 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
* valid
* -0.0 DKIMWL_WL_MED DKIMwl.org - Whitelisted Medium sender

but whitelist_auth *@infrascale.com fails to whitelist the actual
message. Is this due to the above SPF being skipped? It didn't pass
DKIM_AUTH_AU, however.

What am I missing?

Re: whitelist_auth and outlook.com [ In reply to ]

mysqlstudent at gmail

May 22, 2020, 1:16 PM

Post #2 of 5 (789 views)

Permalink

> X-Comment: SPF skipped for whitelisted relay domain -
> client-ip=40.107.223.96;
> helo=nam11-dm6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com;
> envelope-from=user@infrascale.com; receiver=recipient@gmail.com

Oops, this wasn't actually a recipient at gmail.com, of course, but of
one of our users on their domain.

Re: whitelist_auth and outlook.com [ In reply to ]

me at junc

May 22, 2020, 1:25 PM

Post #3 of 5 (789 views)

Permalink

On 2020-05-22 22:12, Alex wrote:

> What am I missing?

https://dmarcian.com/spf-survey/?domain=infrascale.com

too many ip4 in there spf makes it untrusted here, sorry

infrascale.com can still make a better spf, if that solves anything

Re: whitelist_auth and outlook.com [ In reply to ]

kremels at kreme

May 24, 2020, 2:55 PM

Post #4 of 5 (779 views)

Permalink

On 22 May 2020, at 14:25, Benny Pedersen <me@junc.eu> wrote:
> too many ip4 in there spf makes it untrusted here, sorry

Why would the number of OPv4 addresses matter?

--
But of course there were the rules. Everyone knew there were rules.
They just had to hope like Hell that the gods knew the rules,
too.

Re: whitelist_auth and outlook.com [ In reply to ]

me at junc

May 24, 2020, 3:42 PM

Post #5 of 5 (779 views)

Permalink

On 2020-05-24 23:55, @lbutlr wrote:
> On 22 May 2020, at 14:25, Benny Pedersen <me@junc.eu> wrote:
>> too many ip4 in there spf makes it untrusted here, sorry
>
> Why would the number of OPv4 addresses matter?

is there a diffrence on one single ipv4 and more then 256 diffrence ips
?

lets say one make v=spf1 +all, even v=spf1 ip4:1.0.0.0/8 -all is valid

its supported, but how does it helps to stop forged emails ?

sadly its supported in spf as valid spf

OPv4 have multiple duplicate includes to make it worse