FAQ
Gmail dumps patch review email in my junk box. The problem seems to be
the spoofed From: header.


Received: from psf.upfronthosting.co.za ([2a01:4f8:131:2480::3])
          by mx.google.com with ESMTP id
m1si26039166wjy.52.2015.05.12.00.20.38
          for <tjreedy@udel.edu>;
          Tue, 12 May 2015 00:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning
storchaka at gmail.com does not designate 2a01:4f8:131:2480::3 as permitted
sender) client-ip=2a01:4f8:131:2480::3;


Tracker reviews are the only false positives in my junk list. Otherwise,
I might stop reviewing. Verizon does not even deliver mail that fails
its junk test, so I would not be surprised if there are people who
simply do not get emailed reviews.


Tracker posts are sent from Person Name <report@bugs.python.org>
Perhaps reviews could come 'from' Person Name <review@bugs.python.org>


Even direct tracker posts just get a neutral score.
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 2a01:4f8:131:2480::3 is neither
permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of
roundup-admin at psf.upfronthosting.co.za) client-ip=2a01:4f8:131:2480::3;


SPF is Sender Policy Framework
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework


Checkins mail, for instance, gets an SPF 'pass' because python.org
designates mail.python.org as a permitted sender.


--
Terry Jan Reedy

Search Discussions

  • David Wilson at May 12, 2015 at 10:15 pm
    SPF only covers the envelope sender, so it should be possible to set
    that to something that validates with SPF, keep the RFC822 From: header
    as it is, and maybe(?) include a separate Sender: header matching the
    envelope address.




    David

    On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 06:08:30PM -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
    Gmail dumps patch review email in my junk box. The problem seems to be the
    spoofed From: header.

    Received: from psf.upfronthosting.co.za ([2a01:4f8:131:2480::3])
    by mx.google.com with ESMTP id
    m1si26039166wjy.52.2015.05.12.00.20.38
    for <tjreedy@udel.edu>;
    Tue, 12 May 2015 00:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
    Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning
    storchaka at gmail.com does not designate 2a01:4f8:131:2480::3 as permitted
    sender) client-ip=2a01:4f8:131:2480::3;

    Tracker reviews are the only false positives in my junk list. Otherwise, I
    might stop reviewing. Verizon does not even deliver mail that fails its junk
    test, so I would not be surprised if there are people who simply do not get
    emailed reviews.

    Tracker posts are sent from Person Name <report@bugs.python.org>
    Perhaps reviews could come 'from' Person Name <review@bugs.python.org>

    Even direct tracker posts just get a neutral score.
    Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 2a01:4f8:131:2480::3 is neither permitted
    nor denied by best guess record for domain of
    roundup-admin at psf.upfronthosting.co.za) client-ip=2a01:4f8:131:2480::3;

    SPF is Sender Policy Framework
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework

    Checkins mail, for instance, gets an SPF 'pass' because python.org
    designates mail.python.org as a permitted sender.
  • Cameron Simpson at May 12, 2015 at 10:57 pm

    On 12May2015 22:15, David Wilson wrote:
    SPF only covers the envelope sender, so it should be possible to set
    that to something that validates with SPF, keep the RFC822 From: header
    as it is, and maybe(?) include a separate Sender: header matching the
    envelope address.

    David

    Indeed. That sounds sane to me too. Google's complaint is SPF specific, so
    hopefully that is the criterion for the spam rating.


    It looks like bugs.python.org does not have an SPF record at all - neither SPF
    not TXT. (You really want both, same format, to support older DNS clients).


    I'm not sure you need a Sender: (though it wouldn't hurt), given that the From:
    is already a "system" like address ("<report@") and not a forged From: eg
    "Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu>" as a mailing list would do.


    Cheers,
    Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au>

    On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 06:08:30PM -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
    Gmail dumps patch review email in my junk box. The problem seems to be the
    spoofed From: header.

    Received: from psf.upfronthosting.co.za ([2a01:4f8:131:2480::3])
    by mx.google.com with ESMTP id
    m1si26039166wjy.52.2015.05.12.00.20.38
    for <tjreedy@udel.edu>;
    Tue, 12 May 2015 00:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
    Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning
    storchaka at gmail.com does not designate 2a01:4f8:131:2480::3 as permitted
    sender) client-ip=2a01:4f8:131:2480::3;

    Tracker reviews are the only false positives in my junk list. Otherwise, I
    might stop reviewing. Verizon does not even deliver mail that fails its junk
    test, so I would not be surprised if there are people who simply do not get
    emailed reviews.

    Tracker posts are sent from Person Name <report@bugs.python.org>
    Perhaps reviews could come 'from' Person Name <review@bugs.python.org>

    Even direct tracker posts just get a neutral score.
    Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 2a01:4f8:131:2480::3 is neither permitted
    nor denied by best guess record for domain of
    roundup-admin at psf.upfronthosting.co.za) client-ip=2a01:4f8:131:2480::3;

    SPF is Sender Policy Framework
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework

    Checkins mail, for instance, gets an SPF 'pass' because python.org
    designates mail.python.org as a permitted sender.
    _______________________________________________
    Python-Dev mailing list
    Python-Dev at python.org
    https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
    Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/cs%40zip.com.au
  • Chris Angelico at May 13, 2015 at 5:20 am

    On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:15 AM, David Wilson wrote:
    SPF only covers the envelope sender, so it should be possible to set
    that to something that validates with SPF, keep the RFC822 From: header
    as it is, and maybe(?) include a separate Sender: header matching the
    envelope address.

    As Cameron says, Sender: isn't necessary - just have the envelope
    address be bounces@ or something and it should be fine. This is how
    SPF and (eg) mailing lists interact.


    ChrisA
  • Antti Haapala at May 22, 2015 at 5:05 am
    There's an issue about this at
    http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue562


    I believe the problem is not that of the SPF, but the fact that mail gets
    sent using IPv6 from an address that has neither a name mapping to it nor a
    reverse pointer from IP address to name in DNS. See the second-first
    comment where R. David Murray states that "Mail is consistently sent from
    report at bugs.python.org, always from the same IP address, 46.4.197.70.
      46.4.197.70 resolves to bugs.python.org.", which clearly is false.




    On 13 May 2015 at 08:20, Chris Angelico wrote:

    On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:15 AM, David Wilson wrote:
    SPF only covers the envelope sender, so it should be possible to set
    that to something that validates with SPF, keep the RFC822 From: header
    as it is, and maybe(?) include a separate Sender: header matching the
    envelope address.
    As Cameron says, Sender: isn't necessary - just have the envelope
    address be bounces@ or something and it should be fine. This is how
    SPF and (eg) mailing lists interact.

    ChrisA
    _______________________________________________
    Python-Dev mailing list
    Python-Dev at python.org
    https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
    Unsubscribe:
    https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/antti%40haapala.name





    --
    Antti Haapala
    antti.haapala at iki.fi
    http://antti.haapala.name/
    +358503693535
    -------------- next part --------------
    An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
    URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150522/e547bab0/attachment.html>
  • R. David Murray at Jun 7, 2015 at 6:41 pm

    On Fri, 22 May 2015 08:05:49 +0300, Antti Haapala wrote:
    There's an issue about this at
    http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue562

    I believe the problem is not that of the SPF, but the fact that mail gets
    sent using IPv6 from an address that has neither a name mapping to it nor a
    reverse pointer from IP address to name in DNS. See the second-first
    comment where R. David Murray states that "Mail is consistently sent from

    The ipv6 reverse dns issue is being worked on.
  • Gregory P. Smith at Jun 9, 2015 at 9:41 pm

    On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:09 PM Terry Reedy wrote:


    Gmail dumps patch review email in my junk box. The problem seems to be
    the spoofed From: header.

    Received: from psf.upfronthosting.co.za ([2a01:4f8:131:2480::3])
    by mx.google.com with ESMTP id
    m1si26039166wjy.52.2015.05.12.00.20.38
    for <tjreedy@udel.edu>;
    Tue, 12 May 2015 00:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
    Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning
    storchaka at gmail.com does not designate 2a01:4f8:131:2480::3 as permitted
    sender) client-ip=2a01:4f8:131:2480::3;

    Tracker reviews are the only false positives in my junk list. Otherwise,
    I might stop reviewing. Verizon does not even deliver mail that fails
    its junk test, so I would not be surprised if there are people who
    simply do not get emailed reviews.

    Tracker posts are sent from Person Name <report@bugs.python.org>
    Perhaps reviews could come 'from' Person Name <review@bugs.python.org>

    Even direct tracker posts just get a neutral score.
    Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 2a01:4f8:131:2480::3 is neither
    permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of
    roundup-admin at psf.upfronthosting.co.za) client-ip=2a01:4f8:131:2480::3;

    SPF is Sender Policy Framework
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework

    Checkins mail, for instance, gets an SPF 'pass' because python.org
    designates mail.python.org as a permitted sender.

    --
    Terry Jan Reedy

    FWIW while the email signing issue might be interesting to fix... I really
    wish code reviews weren't emailed separately, I'd like to see them simply
    appended to the related issue as a block comment on the issue. Then all
    email notification would be handled by the bug tracker itself (which
    happens to already work). It keeps related conversation in a single place
    which will continue to persist even if we switch review tools in the future.


    I *believe* you can get this to happen today in a review if you add the
    report at bugs.python.org email address to the code review as the issueXXXXX
    in the subject line will make the tracker turn it into a bug comment. If
    so, having that be the default cc for all reviews created would be a great
    feature (and modify it not to send mail to anyone else).


    My 2 cents. (literally; as I'm only suggesting, not implementing)


    -gps
    -------------- next part --------------
    An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
    URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150609/842946ae/attachment.html>
  • R. David Murray at Jun 10, 2015 at 12:45 am

    On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:41:23 -0000, "Gregory P. Smith" wrote:
    I *believe* you can get this to happen today in a review if you add the
    report at bugs.python.org email address to the code review as the issueXXXXX
    in the subject line will make the tracker turn it into a bug comment. If
    so, having that be the default cc for all reviews created would be a great
    feature (and modify it not to send mail to anyone else).

    I haven't double checked, but I think the issue number has to be in
    square brackets to be recognized. Presumably that's a change that
    could be made. What is lacking is someone willing to climb the
    relatively steep learning curve needed to submit patches for that
    part of the system, and some one of us with the keys to the tracker
    with time to apply the patch. Given the former I think we can
    manage the latter.


    I believe Ezio did try to make rietveld update the tracker, and ran
    into a problem whose nature I don't know...but I don't think he spent
    a whole lot of time trying to debug the problem, whatever it was.
    I imagine he'll chime in :)


    --David

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouppython-dev @
categoriespython
postedMay 12, '15 at 10:08p
activeJun 10, '15 at 12:45a
posts8
users7
websitepython.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2017 Grokbase