spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RE: sendmail-milter-spf-1.1.pl script and secondary MX

2004-01-09 09:48:28
Kenn Humborg wrote:

If you have multiple backups at different priorities, you'll need
to tell each mailserver to trust all the other servers with lower
priorities.  Which is a pain, especially if they are administered
by different people.

Also, these servers should only trust each other for mail destined
for your domain, since the set of MX servers depends on the recipient
domain, not the sender domain.  Each recipient of message could have
a different set of MX servers, in different priority order.


Exactly. To fix this, I produced a patch for Mail::SPF::Query. Meng argues that this should not be part of Mail::SPF::Query, and that is a valid viewpoint (albeit one that I disagree with ;-) )

The alternative to putting the logic into Mail::SPF::Query is to put it into Mail::SPFMX::Query which then wraps Mail::SPF::Query. This seems like a worse solution.

The fact is that MTA implementors need to be cognizant of the MX problem, and need to either fix it, or provide some way for the administrator to fix it. For reasons that I have expressed earlier, I beleive (strongly) that if you rely on administrators to configure some stuff correctly, some percentage will get it wrong. If the MTA implementator can get it right, then that is a better route to take.

Of course, this doesn't deal with implementations that are not based on Mail::SPF::Query!

[BTW, I used a fairly simple algorithm:

For each recipient:

        If the message is known to be forged, then reject this recipient

   else If the message is from a secondary MX for this recipient, then
                allow

   else If the message fails the SPF check, then reject this recipient
                and mark the message forged

   else Allow this recipient

At the end, if the message is forged, reject the whole message.

A secondary MX is a system which is listed as an MX for a domain, and is not the highest priority MX. Note that in many (most?) cases, there is only zero or one MX record, and so there are no secondary MX hosts. Hence this check is pretty cheap.

If you are doing the SPF checks not in real time, then the algorithm can be somewhat simpler, but have the same effect.
]

Philip

-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡