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

    • Playground Games confirms Forza Horizon 6 save wipe bug by Taras Buria Forza Horizon 6 was launched last month to critical acclaim (check out our review here), and it became a smash hit in an instant. Now, weeks into the launch, with die-hard fans clocking hundreds of hours, Forza Horizon 6 is facing a serious issue: save wipes. After multiple complaints on Reddit and social media, the studio issued a statement. The problem with missing saves came shortly after Playground Games promised the initial batch of gameplay tweaks and improvements. Unfortunately, there seems to be no temporary fixes for those affected by unexpected save wipes. However, the studio published a new support document with a few important steps users should try. First, affected gamers should open a support ticket immediately (go here to file one) so that the support team can try recovering the lost progress by reverting to an earlier save. Playground Games says this should be done the same day the issue occurs. Meanwhile, gamers are urged not to start new play sessions or create new saves. The studio also published a few things gamers should try to avoid to prevent potential progress loss: Ensure your Gaming Services app on PC or XBOX Series X|S console is fully up to date. On XBOX Series X|S consoles, disable Quick Resume for Forza Horizon 6: To disable Forza Horizon 6 from using Quick Resume, highlight the game box art anywhere in the console experience (Home, My Games & Apps, Pins, etc) and then press the Menu button, then go to Manage game and add-ons > Quick Resume settings > Disable Quick Resume. Ensure you are online when ‘quitting’ the game. Give your saved time to sync to the cloud before powering off or switching devices. Do not force quit the game during save screens. Do not power off the device during gameplay. Always "Quit" (console) or "Exit to desktop" (PC) once you've finished your play session, ensuring the save icon is not visible when you’re closing the game. Before turning off your console, shutting down your PC, or force-closing the Steam app, give your devices or clients at least a few minutes to ensure your latest progress has been synchronized with the cloud. This will reduce the risk of progress reversions as you switch between different platforms. XBOX Series X|S consoles, Steam, and the XBOX app on PC all include game save indicators that confirm your progress has been synced. You can read more about the bug in the official support document here. Forza Horizon 6 is currently available on PC (Steam and the Microsoft Store), Xbox Series X|S, and Game Pass. The game is also coming to PlayStation 5 later this year.
    • If only Windows would have a toggle switch labeled "Get the latest updates as soon as possible" inside Windows Update settings... But nah, let's hide the new stuff inside a controlled feature rollout, even if the user is explicitly asking for the new stuff as soon as possible. Awesome idea!
    • After watching the Apple event earlier this week it is quite the contrast. Apple is going back and tweaking the code to make things more efficient in many areas of MacOS. Windows is boosting your electric build to hide their issues.
  • 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
      502
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      199
    3. 3
      +Edouard
      157
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      84
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      74
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!