Mailing List Archive

Hmm,

I just checked with spfquery included with libspf2:

srs# spfquery -debug -ip 216.39.67.112 -sender cwjobs-e2-27265112@ProcessRequest.com -helo DAL1BS110.PROCESSREQUEST.COM
spf_dns_null.c:64 Debug: DNS pre-cache lookup: ProcessRequest.com TXT (16)
spf_dns_resolv.c:144 Debug: DNS resolv looking for: ProcessRequest.com TXT (16)
spf_dns_null.c:94 Debug: DNS pre-cache found: ProcessRequest.com TXT (16) TTL: 1800 RR found: 1 herrno: 0 source: resolv
spf_get_spf.c:116 Debug: found SPF record: v=spf1 ptr -all
spf_dns_null.c:64 Debug: DNS pre-cache lookup: 112.67.39.216.in-addr.arpa PTR (12)
spf_dns_resolv.c:144 Debug: DNS resolv looking for: 112.67.39.216.in-addr.arpa PTR (12)
spf_dns_null.c:94 Debug: DNS pre-cache found: 112.67.39.216.in-addr.arpa PTR (12) TTL: 1800 RR found: 1 herrno: 0 source: resolv
spf_eval_id.c:551 Debug: found 1 PTR records for 216.39.67.112 (herrno: 0)
spf_dns_null.c:64 Debug: DNS pre-cache lookup: dal1bs110.processrequest.com A (1)
spf_dns_resolv.c:144 Debug: DNS resolv looking for: dal1bs110.processrequest.com A (1)
spf_dns_null.c:94 Debug: DNS pre-cache found: dal1bs110.processrequest.com A (1) TTL: 30 RR found: 1 herrno: 0 source: resolv
spf_eval_id.c:569 Debug: 0: found 1 A records for dal1bs110.processrequest.com (herrno: 0)
spf_eval_id.c:586 Debug: 0: 0: found 216.39.67.112
spf_eval_id.c:597 Debug: ProcessRequest.com == dal1bs110.processrequest.com
spf_eval_id.c:605 Debug: sRequest.com == srequest.com SPF header: version: 1 mech 2/4 mod 0/0 len=8
SPF record: v=spf1 ptr -all
err = No errors (0)
err_msg =
fail
Please see http://spf.pobox.com/why.html?sender=cwjobs-e2-27265112%40ProcessRequest.com&ip=216.39.67.112&receiver=spfquery
spfquery: domain of ProcessRequest.com does not designate 216.39.67.112 as permitted sender
Received-SPF: fail (spfquery: domain of ProcessRequest.com does not designate 216.39.67.112 as permitted sender) client-ip=216.39.67.112; envelope-from=cwjobs-e2-27265112@ProcessRequest.com; helo=DAL1BS110.PROCESSREQUEST.COM;

Maybe it's the case (ProcessRequest.com vs processrequest.com) that's
giving problems here?? If that's not it, i see no reason why it should
fail.

Ah yes, it definatelly is case related:

srs# spfquery -ip 216.39.67.112 -sender cwjobs-e2-27265112@processrequest.com -helo DAL1BS110.processrequest.com
pass

spfquery: domain of processrequest.com designates 216.39.67.112 as permitted sender
Received-SPF: pass (spfquery: domain of processrequest.com designates 216.39.67.112 as permitted sender) client-ip=216.39.67.112; envelope-from=cwjobs-e2-27265112@processrequest.com; helo=DAL1BS110.processrequest.com;


So the solution lies with processrequest.com: have them use case
consistently. If they are unwilling to normalize their dns, you could
always whitelist them..

Koen

On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 11:54:22AM +0100, OLawton@britishlegion.org.uk wrote:
> Hi, this isn't a problem with my SPF records, I think they're OK, but I'm rejecting email from another company based on their records, I'm only having problems with this one sender, I'd to know if the problem is my end or their end.
>
> I'm using Michael Brumm's SPF filter on W2003 SMTP server, this is the rejection log:-
>
> Rejected client 216.39.67.112 due to an SPF failure.
> The client was connecting as "DAL1BS110.PROCESSREQUEST.COM" and sending a message from "cwjobs-e2-27265112@ProcessRequest.com".
> This violated the SPF policy for the sender's domain.
>
> Looking up the SPF for "processrequest.com" gives - "v=spf1 ptr -all"
>
> Looking up 216.39.67.112 gives:-
> Name: dal1bs110.processrequest.com
> Address: 216.39.67.112
> Aliases: 112.67.39.216.in-addr.arpa
>
> Looking up DAL1BS110.PROCESSREQUEST.COM gives:-
> Name: DAL1BS110.PROCESSREQUEST.COM
> Address: 216.39.67.112
>
> The only unusual thing I can see is the Alias in the lookup for 216.39.67.112, perhaps that's causing the rejection?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ortho Lawton
> Asst.Network manager
> Royal British Legion
>
> -------
> Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-help/current/
> Donate! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
> To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
> please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-help@v2.listbox.com

--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/

-------
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-help/current/
Donate! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-help@v2.listbox.com

Thanks :)

I didn't know it was case sensitive, I'll have to look out for that in future.

I suppose the other question is should it be case sensitive, there must be an awful lot of DNS entries out there with varying cases?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-help@v2.listbox.com [mailto:owner-spf-help@v2.listbox.com] On Behalf Of Koen Martens
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 12:15 PM
To: spf-help@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [spf-help] Problem with SPF email rejection

Hmm,

I just checked with spfquery included with libspf2:

srs# spfquery -debug -ip 216.39.67.112 -sender cwjobs-e2-27265112@ProcessRequest.com -helo DAL1BS110.PROCESSREQUEST.COM
spf_dns_null.c:64 Debug: DNS pre-cache lookup: ProcessRequest.com TXT (16)
spf_dns_resolv.c:144 Debug: DNS resolv looking for: ProcessRequest.com TXT (16)
spf_dns_null.c:94 Debug: DNS pre-cache found: ProcessRequest.com TXT (16) TTL: 1800 RR found: 1 herrno: 0 source: resolv
spf_get_spf.c:116 Debug: found SPF record: v=spf1 ptr -all
spf_dns_null.c:64 Debug: DNS pre-cache lookup: 112.67.39.216.in-addr.arpa PTR (12)
spf_dns_resolv.c:144 Debug: DNS resolv looking for: 112.67.39.216.in-addr.arpa PTR (12)
spf_dns_null.c:94 Debug: DNS pre-cache found: 112.67.39.216.in-addr.arpa PTR (12) TTL: 1800 RR found: 1 herrno: 0 source: resolv
spf_eval_id.c:551 Debug: found 1 PTR records for 216.39.67.112 (herrno: 0)
spf_dns_null.c:64 Debug: DNS pre-cache lookup: dal1bs110.processrequest.com A (1)
spf_dns_resolv.c:144 Debug: DNS resolv looking for: dal1bs110.processrequest.com A (1)
spf_dns_null.c:94 Debug: DNS pre-cache found: dal1bs110.processrequest.com A (1) TTL: 30 RR found: 1 herrno: 0 source: resolv
spf_eval_id.c:569 Debug: 0: found 1 A records for dal1bs110.processrequest.com (herrno: 0)
spf_eval_id.c:586 Debug: 0: 0: found 216.39.67.112
spf_eval_id.c:597 Debug: ProcessRequest.com == dal1bs110.processrequest.com
spf_eval_id.c:605 Debug: sRequest.com == srequest.com SPF header: version: 1 mech 2/4 mod 0/0 len=8
SPF record: v=spf1 ptr -all
err = No errors (0)
err_msg =
fail
Please see http://spf.pobox.com/why.html?sender=cwjobs-e2-27265112%40ProcessRequest.com&ip=216.39.67.112&receiver=spfquery
spfquery: domain of ProcessRequest.com does not designate 216.39.67.112 as permitted sender
Received-SPF: fail (spfquery: domain of ProcessRequest.com does not designate 216.39.67.112 as permitted sender) client-ip=216.39.67.112; envelope-from=cwjobs-e2-27265112@ProcessRequest.com; helo=DAL1BS110.PROCESSREQUEST.COM;

Maybe it's the case (ProcessRequest.com vs processrequest.com) that's giving problems here?? If that's not it, i see no reason why it should fail.

Ah yes, it definatelly is case related:

srs# spfquery -ip 216.39.67.112 -sender cwjobs-e2-27265112@processrequest.com -helo DAL1BS110.processrequest.com pass

spfquery: domain of processrequest.com designates 216.39.67.112 as permitted sender
Received-SPF: pass (spfquery: domain of processrequest.com designates 216.39.67.112 as permitted sender) client-ip=216.39.67.112; envelope-from=cwjobs-e2-27265112@processrequest.com; helo=DAL1BS110.processrequest.com;


So the solution lies with processrequest.com: have them use case consistently. If they are unwilling to normalize their dns, you could always whitelist them..

Koen

On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 11:54:22AM +0100, OLawton@britishlegion.org.uk wrote:
> Hi, this isn't a problem with my SPF records, I think they're OK, but I'm rejecting email from another company based on their records, I'm only having problems with this one sender, I'd to know if the problem is my end or their end.
>
> I'm using Michael Brumm's SPF filter on W2003 SMTP server, this is the
> rejection log:-
>
> Rejected client 216.39.67.112 due to an SPF failure.
> The client was connecting as "DAL1BS110.PROCESSREQUEST.COM" and sending a message from "cwjobs-e2-27265112@ProcessRequest.com".
> This violated the SPF policy for the sender's domain.
>
> Looking up the SPF for "processrequest.com" gives - "v=spf1 ptr -all"
>
> Looking up 216.39.67.112 gives:-
> Name: dal1bs110.processrequest.com
> Address: 216.39.67.112
> Aliases: 112.67.39.216.in-addr.arpa
>
> Looking up DAL1BS110.PROCESSREQUEST.COM gives:-
> Name: DAL1BS110.PROCESSREQUEST.COM
> Address: 216.39.67.112
>
> The only unusual thing I can see is the Alias in the lookup for 216.39.67.112, perhaps that's causing the rejection?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ortho Lawton
> Asst.Network manager
> Royal British Legion
>
> -------
> Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-help/current/
> Donate! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
> To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
> subscription, please go to
> http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-help@v2.listbox.com

--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/ Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/

-------
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-help/current/
Donate! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-help@v2.listbox.com

-------
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-help/current/
Donate! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-help@v2.listbox.com

Yes, it made me wonder too, although i haven't seen it an awful lot i
must say. However, the smtp rfc's make mention of case sensitivity. It
is said an mta should preserve case, but may not rely on the fact that
other mta's do. In other words, smtp is effectivelly case insensitive.

I did a quick search on 'case' in the SPF-Classic draft, this is the
only relevant sentence i found:

"However, case SHOULD be preserved in arguments to mechanisms and modifiers."

Section 4.6 (which defines the ptr mechanism) says nothing about case.
Maybe this is in some rfc relevant for dns???

Koen


On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 12:25:54PM +0100, OLawton@britishlegion.org.uk wrote:
> Thanks :)
>
> I didn't know it was case sensitive, I'll have to look out for that in future.
>
> I suppose the other question is should it be case sensitive, there must be an awful lot of DNS entries out there with varying cases?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-spf-help@v2.listbox.com [mailto:owner-spf-help@v2.listbox.com] On Behalf Of Koen Martens
> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 12:15 PM
> To: spf-help@v2.listbox.com
> Subject: Re: [spf-help] Problem with SPF email rejection
>
> Hmm,
>
> I just checked with spfquery included with libspf2:
>
> srs# spfquery -debug -ip 216.39.67.112 -sender cwjobs-e2-27265112@ProcessRequest.com -helo DAL1BS110.PROCESSREQUEST.COM
> spf_dns_null.c:64 Debug: DNS pre-cache lookup: ProcessRequest.com TXT (16)
> spf_dns_resolv.c:144 Debug: DNS resolv looking for: ProcessRequest.com TXT (16)
> spf_dns_null.c:94 Debug: DNS pre-cache found: ProcessRequest.com TXT (16) TTL: 1800 RR found: 1 herrno: 0 source: resolv
> spf_get_spf.c:116 Debug: found SPF record: v=spf1 ptr -all
> spf_dns_null.c:64 Debug: DNS pre-cache lookup: 112.67.39.216.in-addr.arpa PTR (12)
> spf_dns_resolv.c:144 Debug: DNS resolv looking for: 112.67.39.216.in-addr.arpa PTR (12)
> spf_dns_null.c:94 Debug: DNS pre-cache found: 112.67.39.216.in-addr.arpa PTR (12) TTL: 1800 RR found: 1 herrno: 0 source: resolv
> spf_eval_id.c:551 Debug: found 1 PTR records for 216.39.67.112 (herrno: 0)
> spf_dns_null.c:64 Debug: DNS pre-cache lookup: dal1bs110.processrequest.com A (1)
> spf_dns_resolv.c:144 Debug: DNS resolv looking for: dal1bs110.processrequest.com A (1)
> spf_dns_null.c:94 Debug: DNS pre-cache found: dal1bs110.processrequest.com A (1) TTL: 30 RR found: 1 herrno: 0 source: resolv
> spf_eval_id.c:569 Debug: 0: found 1 A records for dal1bs110.processrequest.com (herrno: 0)
> spf_eval_id.c:586 Debug: 0: 0: found 216.39.67.112
> spf_eval_id.c:597 Debug: ProcessRequest.com == dal1bs110.processrequest.com
> spf_eval_id.c:605 Debug: sRequest.com == srequest.com SPF header: version: 1 mech 2/4 mod 0/0 len=8
> SPF record: v=spf1 ptr -all
> err = No errors (0)
> err_msg =
> fail
> Please see http://spf.pobox.com/why.html?sender=cwjobs-e2-27265112%40ProcessRequest.com&ip=216.39.67.112&receiver=spfquery
> spfquery: domain of ProcessRequest.com does not designate 216.39.67.112 as permitted sender
> Received-SPF: fail (spfquery: domain of ProcessRequest.com does not designate 216.39.67.112 as permitted sender) client-ip=216.39.67.112; envelope-from=cwjobs-e2-27265112@ProcessRequest.com; helo=DAL1BS110.PROCESSREQUEST.COM;
>
> Maybe it's the case (ProcessRequest.com vs processrequest.com) that's giving problems here?? If that's not it, i see no reason why it should fail.
>
> Ah yes, it definatelly is case related:
>
> srs# spfquery -ip 216.39.67.112 -sender cwjobs-e2-27265112@processrequest.com -helo DAL1BS110.processrequest.com pass
>
> spfquery: domain of processrequest.com designates 216.39.67.112 as permitted sender
> Received-SPF: pass (spfquery: domain of processrequest.com designates 216.39.67.112 as permitted sender) client-ip=216.39.67.112; envelope-from=cwjobs-e2-27265112@processrequest.com; helo=DAL1BS110.processrequest.com;
>
>
> So the solution lies with processrequest.com: have them use case consistently. If they are unwilling to normalize their dns, you could always whitelist them..
>
> Koen
>
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 11:54:22AM +0100, OLawton@britishlegion.org.uk wrote:
> > Hi, this isn't a problem with my SPF records, I think they're OK, but I'm rejecting email from another company based on their records, I'm only having problems with this one sender, I'd to know if the problem is my end or their end.
> >
> > I'm using Michael Brumm's SPF filter on W2003 SMTP server, this is the
> > rejection log:-
> >
> > Rejected client 216.39.67.112 due to an SPF failure.
> > The client was connecting as "DAL1BS110.PROCESSREQUEST.COM" and sending a message from "cwjobs-e2-27265112@ProcessRequest.com".
> > This violated the SPF policy for the sender's domain.
> >
> > Looking up the SPF for "processrequest.com" gives - "v=spf1 ptr -all"
> >
> > Looking up 216.39.67.112 gives:-
> > Name: dal1bs110.processrequest.com
> > Address: 216.39.67.112
> > Aliases: 112.67.39.216.in-addr.arpa
> >
> > Looking up DAL1BS110.PROCESSREQUEST.COM gives:-
> > Name: DAL1BS110.PROCESSREQUEST.COM
> > Address: 216.39.67.112
> >
> > The only unusual thing I can see is the Alias in the lookup for 216.39.67.112, perhaps that's causing the rejection?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Ortho Lawton
> > Asst.Network manager
> > Royal British Legion
> >
> > -------
> > Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-help/current/
> > Donate! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
> > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
> > subscription, please go to
> > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-help@v2.listbox.com
>
> --
> K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/ Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
> Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
> Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/
>
> -------
> Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-help/current/
> Donate! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
> To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-help@v2.listbox.com
>
> -------
> Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-help/current/
> Donate! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
> To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
> please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-help@v2.listbox.com

--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/

-------
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-help/current/
Donate! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-help@v2.listbox.com

"Koen Martens" elucidated:
>....

>Maybe it's the case (ProcessRequest.com vs processrequest.com) that's
>giving problems here?? If that's not it, i see no reason why it should
>fail.
>....
>So the solution lies with processrequest.com: have them use case
>consistently. If they are unwilling to normalize their dns, you could
>always whitelist them..

>Koen



Er, are you _sure_ the problem is with their DNS?

As I understood it, the use of upper-case letters is optional in mail
addresses - the 'canonic' form of the address is lower-case.

So is it not the SPF software which is at fault in not forcing the mail address
into its canonic, lower-case form before starting the tests?

I don't know if its just a bug in the SPF implementation or a bug (omission) in
the SPF draft spec. - worth investigating!

Chris


-------
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-help/current/
Donate! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-help@v2.listbox.com

On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 12:39:02PM +0100, Chris Haynes wrote:
> Er, are you _sure_ the problem is with their DNS?
>
> As I understood it, the use of upper-case letters is optional in mail
> addresses - the 'canonic' form of the address is lower-case.
>
> So is it not the SPF software which is at fault in not forcing the mail address
> into its canonic, lower-case form before starting the tests?
>
> I don't know if its just a bug in the SPF implementation or a bug (omission) in
> the SPF draft spec. - worth investigating!

It's definately an omission in the SPF-Classic draft, as well as in the
draft-ietf-marid-protocol-00.txt draft. It never says we should compare
domains in a case-sensitive manner.

Anyway, it's in both the windows thingy that originated this
thread and the spfquery tool included with libspf2. I didn't check with
libspf and/or M:S:Q, maybe someone should..

Koen

--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/

-------
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-help/current/
Donate! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-help@v2.listbox.com

"Koen Martens" replied:

>It's definately an omission in the SPF-Classic draft, as well as in the
>draft-ietf-marid-protocol-00.txt draft. It never says we should compare
>domains in a case-sensitive manner.



I think that should read
"..should compare domains in a case-INsensitive manner".


Chris

-------
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-help/current/
Donate! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-help@v2.listbox.com

Chris Haynes wrote:

>> It's definately an omission in the SPF-Classic draft, as
>> well as in the draft-ietf-marid-protocol-00.txt draft. It
>> never says we should compare domains in a case-sensitive
>> manner.

> I think that should read
> "..should compare domains in a case-INsensitive manner".

Yes. It's a general rule for domains, see RfC 1035 2.3.3:

| For all parts of the DNS that are part of the official
| protocol, all comparisons between character strings (e.g.,
| labels, domain names, etc.) are done in a case-insensitive
| manner

IIRC this doesn't include local parts, there's an explicit
rule for the 1024 [Pp][Os][Ss][Tt][Mm][Aa][Ss][Tt][Ee]{Rr]
variants in RfC 282?.
Bye, Frank


-------
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-help/current/
Donate! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-help@v2.listbox.com

There has been some discussion on the SPF-Discuss list and the conclusion is that:
1) Domain names can use whatever case that they want, but when being compared, case should be ignored.
2) LibSPF2 is flawed in this respect. You may want to try one of the other SPF libraries, such as LibSPF or Mail::SPF::Query

Good luck,
Marc

>
> From: <OLawton@britishlegion.org.uk>
> Date: 2004/07/31 Sat AM 07:25:54 EDT
> To: <spf-help@v2.listbox.com>
> Subject: RE: [spf-help] Problem with SPF email rejection
>
> Thanks :)
>
> I didn't know it was case sensitive, I'll have to look out for that in future.
>
> I suppose the other question is should it be case sensitive, there must be an awful lot of DNS entries out there with varying cases?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-spf-help@v2.listbox.com [mailto:owner-spf-help@v2.listbox.com] On Behalf Of Koen Martens
> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 12:15 PM
> To: spf-help@v2.listbox.com
> Subject: Re: [spf-help] Problem with SPF email rejection
>
> Hmm,
>
> I just checked with spfquery included with libspf2:
>
> srs# spfquery -debug -ip 216.39.67.112 -sender cwjobs-e2-27265112@ProcessRequest.com -helo DAL1BS110.PROCESSREQUEST.COM
> spf_dns_null.c:64 Debug: DNS pre-cache lookup: ProcessRequest.com TXT (16)
> spf_dns_resolv.c:144 Debug: DNS resolv looking for: ProcessRequest.com TXT (16)
> spf_dns_null.c:94 Debug: DNS pre-cache found: ProcessRequest.com TXT (16) TTL: 1800 RR found: 1 herrno: 0 source: resolv
> spf_get_spf.c:116 Debug: found SPF record: v=spf1 ptr -all
> spf_dns_null.c:64 Debug: DNS pre-cache lookup: 112.67.39.216.in-addr.arpa PTR (12)
> spf_dns_resolv.c:144 Debug: DNS resolv looking for: 112.67.39.216.in-addr.arpa PTR (12)
> spf_dns_null.c:94 Debug: DNS pre-cache found: 112.67.39.216.in-addr.arpa PTR (12) TTL: 1800 RR found: 1 herrno: 0 source: resolv
> spf_eval_id.c:551 Debug: found 1 PTR records for 216.39.67.112 (herrno: 0)
> spf_dns_null.c:64 Debug: DNS pre-cache lookup: dal1bs110.processrequest.com A (1)
> spf_dns_resolv.c:144 Debug: DNS resolv looking for: dal1bs110.processrequest.com A (1)
> spf_dns_null.c:94 Debug: DNS pre-cache found: dal1bs110.processrequest.com A (1) TTL: 30 RR found: 1 herrno: 0 source: resolv
> spf_eval_id.c:569 Debug: 0: found 1 A records for dal1bs110.processrequest.com (herrno: 0)
> spf_eval_id.c:586 Debug: 0: 0: found 216.39.67.112
> spf_eval_id.c:597 Debug: ProcessRequest.com == dal1bs110.processrequest.com
> spf_eval_id.c:605 Debug: sRequest.com == srequest.com SPF header: version: 1 mech 2/4 mod 0/0 len=8
> SPF record: v=spf1 ptr -all
> err = No errors (0)
> err_msg =
> fail
> Please see http://spf.pobox.com/why.html?sender=cwjobs-e2-27265112%40ProcessRequest.com&ip=216.39.67.112&receiver=spfquery
> spfquery: domain of ProcessRequest.com does not designate 216.39.67.112 as permitted sender
> Received-SPF: fail (spfquery: domain of ProcessRequest.com does not designate 216.39.67.112 as permitted sender) client-ip=216.39.67.112; envelope-from=cwjobs-e2-27265112@ProcessRequest.com; helo=DAL1BS110.PROCESSREQUEST.COM;
>
> Maybe it's the case (ProcessRequest.com vs processrequest.com) that's giving problems here?? If that's not it, i see no reason why it should fail.
>
> Ah yes, it definatelly is case related:
>
> srs# spfquery -ip 216.39.67.112 -sender cwjobs-e2-27265112@processrequest.com -helo DAL1BS110.processrequest.com pass
>
> spfquery: domain of processrequest.com designates 216.39.67.112 as permitted sender
> Received-SPF: pass (spfquery: domain of processrequest.com designates 216.39.67.112 as permitted sender) client-ip=216.39.67.112; envelope-from=cwjobs-e2-27265112@processrequest.com; helo=DAL1BS110.processrequest.com;
>
>
> So the solution lies with processrequest.com: have them use case consistently. If they are unwilling to normalize their dns, you could always whitelist them..
>
> Koen
>
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 11:54:22AM +0100, OLawton@britishlegion.org.uk wrote:
> > Hi, this isn't a problem with my SPF records, I think they're OK, but I'm rejecting email from another company based on their records, I'm only having problems with this one sender, I'd to know if the problem is my end or their end.
> >
> > I'm using Michael Brumm's SPF filter on W2003 SMTP server, this is the
> > rejection log:-
> >
> > Rejected client 216.39.67.112 due to an SPF failure.
> > The client was connecting as "DAL1BS110.PROCESSREQUEST.COM" and sending a message from "cwjobs-e2-27265112@ProcessRequest.com".
> > This violated the SPF policy for the sender's domain.
> >
> > Looking up the SPF for "processrequest.com" gives - "v=spf1 ptr -all"
> >
> > Looking up 216.39.67.112 gives:-
> > Name: dal1bs110.processrequest.com
> > Address: 216.39.67.112
> > Aliases: 112.67.39.216.in-addr.arpa
> >
> > Looking up DAL1BS110.PROCESSREQUEST.COM gives:-
> > Name: DAL1BS110.PROCESSREQUEST.COM
> > Address: 216.39.67.112
> >
> > The only unusual thing I can see is the Alias in the lookup for 216.39.67.112, perhaps that's causing the rejection?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Ortho Lawton
> > Asst.Network manager
> > Royal British Legion
> >
> > -------
> > Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-help/current/
> > Donate! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
> > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
> > subscription, please go to
> > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-help@v2.listbox.com
>
> --
> K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/ Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
> Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
> Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/
>
> -------
> Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-help/current/
> Donate! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
> To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-help@v2.listbox.com
>
> -------
> Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-help/current/
> Donate! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
> To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
> please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-help@v2.listbox.com
>

-------
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-help/current/
Donate! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-help@v2.listbox.com

On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 09:12:12AM -0400, marc@alaia.net wrote:
> There has been some discussion on the SPF-Discuss list and the conclusion is that:
> 1) Domain names can use whatever case that they want, but when being compared, case should be ignored.
> 2) LibSPF2 is flawed in this respect. You may want to try one of the other SPF libraries, such as LibSPF or Mail::SPF::Query

Or patch libspf2-1.0.4/src/libspf2/spf_eval_id.c with this patch:

601c603
< && *pc-- == *ps-- )
---
> && tolower( *pc-- ) == tolower(
> *ps-- ) )


Koen

--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/

-------
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-help/current/
Donate! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-help@v2.listbox.com

I wasn't subscribed to this mailing list, so I'm sorry for the delayed response.

The next version of the SMTP SPF Filter for Exchange/IIS will include a fix for this (and a few other bugs I expect). However, it will be released by GFI, not by me. I've been told that they are very close to releasing their filter, so this should not be a problem.

Thanks for finding the bug! It's always nice to hear people are using/testing something you've written.

Michael R. Brumm

-------
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-help/current/
Donate! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-help@v2.listbox.com