Help Analyzing Email Header

By primexx
in Smart Home, Network & Security

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

primexx

Posted
Posted

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
Grand Master

TAZMINATOR

Posted
Posted

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.

Grand Master

+BudMan MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

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).

Grand Master

+BudMan MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

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.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Posts

    • The official Funny Pictures thread

      By Steffan · Posted

    • Politically funny images of the World

      By +primortal · Posted

    • Playground Games confirms Forza Horizon 6 save wipe bug

      By RejZoR · Posted

      Wow, imagine you dump hundreds of hours into completing things and unlocking stuff and you lose it all. Back in the day when cheats were built into games, you could at least unlock things again that way without spending hundreds of hours again. But those days are long gone for some reason as no one builds cheats into games anymore. So it's even more painful that studio that's on its 6th installment **** it up so badly.
    • Spotify finally removes the disco ball app icon in the latest update

      By Ivan Jenic · Posted

      Spotify finally removes the disco ball app icon in the latest update by Ivan Jenic Image: Spotify Spotify has just released an update that removes its now infamous disco ball icon. The update reverts the app icon to the familiar flat green logo after weeks of mixed reactions online. The icon arrived on May 13 as part of the company's 20th anniversary celebration and was always intended to be temporary, though Spotify only confirmed that after the backlash started. The disco ball took the internet by storm, as the reception was split. A vocal group of users called it ugly and disorienting, with some iOS users noting that the 3D glowing effect made the app look like it was stuck mid-update. On the other end, the icon picked up a following of its own. Its retro, three-dimensional look immediately stood out against the flat, minimalist aesthetic that has dominated app design for years. It even started a small movement, spawning what people started calling "discomorphism," a mashup of disco and skeuomorphism. Other brands started posting disco ball versions of their own logos, probably in an effort to ride the wave of memes that flooded the internet during late May. Spotify has had a turbulent relationship with its user base lately. Besides the disco ball icon, which certainly wasn't appreciated by everyone, the company has also received backlash for its willingness to include AI-generated music on its platform. On May 17, Spotify promised the old icon would return “in a few weeks.” And now it looks like that time has finally arrived. So, whether you liked the disco ball or it made you uncomfortable, it’s now gone for good. The next time you update the Spotify app on your phone, the old, flat-design icon will return.
    • The official Funny Pictures thread

      By +primortal · Posted

  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      slackerzz earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Year In
      highriskpaym earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      highriskpaym earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      highriskpaym earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      FBSPL earned a badge
      Week One Done

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      519
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      197
    3. 3
      +Edouard
      157
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      84
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      75
    Show More

  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!