Recommended Posts

I've recently been getting a perculiar kind of spam, I'm having a little trouble figuring out why it's avoiding the spam filter.

My email setup: I'm using google apps. I have records for SPF (the generic google one), DKIM (unique), and DMARC. My DMARC policy is using default values (but p=quarantine), which uses relaxed alignment mode for both SPF and DKIM as well as letting mail through if either passes (to avoid f/p of forwarding servers).

Basically, this new spam claims to come from my own domain, which it obviously isn't. Now usually this wouldn't be a problem since it should fail both SPF and DKIM. But it looks like this breed is passing (or at least not failing) SPF for some reason. I'm referring specifically to "Received-SPF" and "Authentication-Results", which makes it look like they're using a Gmail account to originate the spam, but the Gmail account itself obviously can't spoof email addresses on my domain. Later down it appears that they are, in fact, using a third party sender, but how does it pass SPF?

I'm quite confused about this header, could anyone with more experience in this area shed some light as to what's actually happening? Is there any change I can make to the DMARC policy to filter this out?

Thanks!


Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: by 10.223.161.66 with SMTP id q2csp29576fax;
Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:11:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.220.116.5 with SMTP id k5mr9087041vcq.55.1361049116195;
Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:11:56 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from 201-212-133-238.cab.prima.net.ar (201-212-133-238.cab.prima.net.ar. [201.212.133.238])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a1si13647855vdk.21.2013.02.16.13.11.54;
Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:11:56 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 201.212.133.238 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of [email protected]) client-ip=201.212.133.238;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
spf=neutral (google.com: 201.212.133.238 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of [email protected]) [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:25:48 -0300
From: <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
Subject: Take a spare three-hour work week in our clinic and get 580 dollars.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
[/CODE]

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1136888-help-analyzing-email-header/
Share on other sites

It might be this address:


[email protected] and/or
[email protected]
[/CODE]

Which you got this today or yesterday... then next email you will get same address with random numbers such as 145, 160, 134... which is why you still get spam in your inbox. If you want to block them... block them with any words you might find in the body or subject line... such as viagra, so you can add them to your blacklist.

gmail spf is not very locked down, if you check that IP against it - if you check any IP against it comes up as neutral

201.212.133.238 may send in the name of the domain.

  • SPF check start.
    • Domain: gmail.com

    [*]Getting SPF (TXT) record.

    [*]Found SPF record.

    [*]SPF policy record data:

    • v=spf1 redirect=_spf.google.com

    [*]Evaluating SPF policy:

    • v=spf1 redirect=_spf.google.com

    [*]Policy parsed OK, no warnings.

    [*]Evaluating SPF policy string.

    • Following the "redirect" modifier.
      • Argument domain-spec: _spf.google.com

      • Domain argument after macro expansion:
        • _spf.google.com

      • SPF check start.
        • Domain: _spf.google.com

      • Getting SPF (TXT) record.

      • Found SPF record.

      • SPF policy record data:
        • v=spf1 include:_netblocks.google.com include:_netblocks2.google.com include:_netblocks3.google.com ?all

      • Evaluating SPF policy:
        • v=spf1 include:_netblocks.google.com include:_netblocks2.google.com include:_netblocks3.google.com ?all

      • Policy parsed OK, no warnings.

      • Evaluating SPF policy string.
        • Evaluating SPF mechanism "include".
          • Prefix: Pass.

          • Argument domain-spec: _netblocks.google.com

          • Domain argument after macro expansion:
            • _netblocks.google.com

          • SPF check start.
            • Domain: _netblocks.google.com

          • Getting SPF (TXT) record.

          • Found SPF record.

          • SPF policy record data:
            • v=spf1 ip4:216.239.32.0/19 ip4:64.233.160.0/19 ip4:66.249.80.0/20 ip4:72.14.192.0/18 ip4:209.85.128.0/17 ip4:66.102.0.0/20 ip4:74.125.0.0/16 ip4:64.18.0.0/20 ip4:207.126.144.0/20 ip4:173.194.0.0/16 ?all

          • Evaluating SPF policy:
            • v=spf1 ip4:216.239.32.0/19 ip4:64.233.160.0/19 ip4:66.249.80.0/20 ip4:72.14.192.0/18 ip4:209.85.128.0/17 ip4:66.102.0.0/20 ip4:74.125.0.0/16 ip4:64.18.0.0/20 ip4:207.126.144.0/20 ip4:173.194.0.0/16 ?all

          • Policy parsed OK, no warnings.

          • Evaluating SPF policy string.
            • Evaluating SPF mechanism "ip4".
              • Prefix: Pass.

              • Argument network-spec: 216.239.32.0

              • Argument ip4-cidr-length: 19

            • Evaluating SPF mechanism "ip4".
              • Prefix: Pass.

              • Argument network-spec: 64.233.160.0

              • Argument ip4-cidr-length: 19

            • Evaluating SPF mechanism "ip4".
              • Prefix: Pass.

              • Argument network-spec: 66.249.80.0

              • Argument ip4-cidr-length: 20

            • Evaluating SPF mechanism "ip4".
              • Prefix: Pass.

              • Argument network-spec: 72.14.192.0

              • Argument ip4-cidr-length: 18

            • Evaluating SPF mechanism "ip4".
              • Prefix: Pass.

              • Argument network-spec: 209.85.128.0

              • Argument ip4-cidr-length: 17

            • Evaluating SPF mechanism "ip4".
              • Prefix: Pass.

              • Argument network-spec: 66.102.0.0

              • Argument ip4-cidr-length: 20

            • Evaluating SPF mechanism "ip4".
              • Prefix: Pass.

              • Argument network-spec: 74.125.0.0

              • Argument ip4-cidr-length: 16

            • Evaluating SPF mechanism "ip4".
              • Prefix: Pass.

              • Argument network-spec: 64.18.0.0

              • Argument ip4-cidr-length: 20

            • Evaluating SPF mechanism "ip4".
              • Prefix: Pass.

              • Argument network-spec: 207.126.144.0

              • Argument ip4-cidr-length: 20

            • Evaluating SPF mechanism "ip4".
              • Prefix: Pass.

              • Argument network-spec: 173.194.0.0

              • Argument ip4-cidr-length: 16

            • Evaluating SPF mechanism "all".
              • Prefix: Neutral.

            • SPF mechanism "all" matched with prefix Neutral.

          • Finished evaluating SPF policy.

          • SPF policy evaluation finished with SPF Neutral.

        • Evaluating SPF mechanism "include".
          • Prefix: Pass.

          • Argument domain-spec: _netblocks2.google.com

          • Domain argument after macro expansion:
            • _netblocks2.google.com

          • SPF check start.
            • Domain: _netblocks2.google.com

          • Getting SPF (TXT) record.

          • Found SPF record.

          • SPF policy record data:
            • v=spf1 ip6:2001:4860:4000::/36 ip6:2404:6800:4000::/36 ip6:2607:f8b0:4000::/36 ip6:2800:3f0:4000::/36 ip6:2a00:1450:4000::/36 ip6:2c0f:fb50:4000::/36 ?all

          • Evaluating SPF policy:
            • v=spf1 ip6:2001:4860:4000::/36 ip6:2404:6800:4000::/36 ip6:2607:f8b0:4000::/36 ip6:2800:3f0:4000::/36 ip6:2a00:1450:4000::/36 ip6:2c0f:fb50:4000::/36 ?all

          • Policy parsed OK, no warnings.

          • Evaluating SPF policy string.
            • IP6 mechanism evaluation is not implemented.

            • IP6 mechanism evaluation is not implemented.

            • IP6 mechanism evaluation is not implemented.

            • IP6 mechanism evaluation is not implemented.

            • IP6 mechanism evaluation is not implemented.

            • IP6 mechanism evaluation is not implemented.

            • Evaluating SPF mechanism "all".
              • Prefix: Neutral.

            • SPF mechanism "all" matched with prefix Neutral.

          • Finished evaluating SPF policy.

          • SPF policy evaluation finished with SPF Neutral.

        • Evaluating SPF mechanism "include".
          • Prefix: Pass.

          • Argument domain-spec: _netblocks3.google.com

          • Domain argument after macro expansion:
            • _netblocks3.google.com

          • SPF check start.
            • Domain: _netblocks3.google.com

          • Getting SPF (TXT) record.

          • Found SPF record.

          • SPF policy record data:
            • v=spf1 ?all

          • Evaluating SPF policy:
            • v=spf1 ?all

          • Policy parsed OK, no warnings.

          • Evaluating SPF policy string.
            • Evaluating SPF mechanism "all".
              • Prefix: Neutral.

            • SPF mechanism "all" matched with prefix Neutral.

          • Finished evaluating SPF policy.

          • SPF policy evaluation finished with SPF Neutral.

        • Evaluating SPF mechanism "all".
          • Prefix: Neutral.

        • SPF mechanism "all" matched with prefix Neutral.

      • Finished evaluating SPF policy.

      • SPF policy evaluation finished with SPF Neutral.

    • Returned from redirection.

    [*]Finished evaluating SPF policy.

    [*]SPF policy evaluation finished with SPF Neutral.

So did a test with just random ****.. 1.2.3.4 may send in the name of the domain.

http://vamsoft.com/s...f-policy-tester

You can use this is well http://www.kitterman...f/validate.html, you can pretty much test anything with a gmail.com domain and you get neutral..

if you notice their record

v=spf1 include:_netblocks.google.com include:_netblocks2.google.com include:_netblocks3.google.com ?all

So since using ?, they never fail anything - so what is the point of the policy?? ;) They really should have a - for their policy.

Each mechanism can be combined with one of four qualifiers:

  • + for a PASS result. This can be omitted; e.g., +mx is the same as mx.
  • ? for a NEUTRAL result interpreted like NONE (no policy).
  • ~ (tilde) for SOFTFAIL, a debugging aid between NEUTRAL and FAIL. Typically, messages that return a SOFTFAIL are accepted but tagged.
  • - (minus) for FAIL, the mail should be rejected (see below).

your hopeless using spf to filter on - its going to be neutral.. But sure there is something else you could filter on.. is the spam all coming from that IP? Got to be some key words to block.. Can you just report as spam, normally gmail updates their filtering.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I’m still using an Xbox One S, so time for an upgrade to play this but as much as I hate Sony, I think I’ll get the ps5 pro
    • I bought this game. Played it for an hour, and then got a refund from Steam. Not a fun game at all.
    • Nothing Ear buds with active noise cancellation are at their lowest price ever with 51% off by Fiza Ali Amazon is currently offering the Nothing Ear wireless earbuds at their lowest price ever with 51% off limited prime deal. The earbuds feature an 11mm dynamic drivers with a ceramic diaphragm, and support high-resolution audio codecs including AAC, SBC, LDAC, and LHDC 5.0. They support active noise cancellation of up to 45dB across a frequency range of up to 5000Hz, and include a smart ANC algorithm, adaptive noise cancellation, and a transparency mode that allows surrounding sounds to be heard when needed. Connectivity is provided via Bluetooth 5.3, with support for multiple profiles including HFP, A2DP, AVRCP, and others. The earbuds also support dual connection, allowing them to be paired with two devices at the same time. Additional features include IP54 water and dust resistance for the earbuds and IP55 for the charging case, in-ear detection, pinch controls, low-latency mode, Google Fast Pair, Microsoft Swift Pair, and a three-microphone system per earbud for clearer voice calls. The Nothing X app, available on Android and iOS, provides access to custom EQ settings, bass enhancement, personal sound profiles, ear tip fit testing, firmware updates, customisable controls, dual-device management, and a find-my-earbuds feature. In terms of battery performance, each earbud has a 46mAh battery and the charging case has a 500mAh capacity. With active noise cancellation (ANC) turned off, the earbuds should offer up to 8.5 hours of playback on a single charge and up to 40.5 hours in total with the charging case. With ANC enabled, playback should last up to 5.2 hours on the earbuds and up to 24 hours with the case. For calls, talk time should reach up to 5 hours on the earbuds and 23 hours with the case when ANC is off, while ANC on should provide up to 4 hours on the earbuds and 18 hours with the case. Finally, fast charging should deliver up to 10 hours of playback from 10 minutes of charging when ANC is disabled. Nothing Ear Wireless Earbuds Bluetooth: $73.15 (Amazon US) - 51% off Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • Microsoft officially launched its Copilot Cowork enterprise AI agent on June 16, 2026, switching to usage-based pricing on the same day it disclosed it is considering a Microsoft-hosted version of China's DeepSeek V4 as a lower-cost engine for the platform — a pairing that puts the company on a collision course with both its enterprise customers' security teams and a White House that has spent months trying to wall off Chinese AI from American infrastructure.................... https://www.techtimes.com/articles/318647/20260618/microsoft-eyes-deepseek-v4-copilot-cowork-what-azure-hosting-cannot-fix.htm  
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      592
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      76
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!