RFC 4408 - Sender Policy Framework (SPF)

PiS

posted Jul 5 '07 at 6:09 pm

Network Working Group M. Wong

Request for Comments: 4408 W. Schlitt

Category: Experimental April 2006

Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for

Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail, Version 1

Status of This Memo

This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet

community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.

Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

IESG Note

The following documents (RFC 4405, RFC 4406, RFC 4407, and RFC 4408)

are published simultaneously as Experimental RFCs, although there is

no general technical consensus and efforts to reconcile the two

approaches have failed. As such, these documents have not received

full IETF review and are published "AS-IS" to document the different

approaches as they were considered in the MARID working group.

The IESG takes no position about which approach is to be preferred

and cautions the reader that there are serious open issues for each

approach and concerns about using them in tandem. The IESG believes

that documenting the different approaches does less harm than not

documenting them.

Note that the Sender ID experiment may use DNS records that may have

been created for the current SPF experiment or earlier versions in

this set of experiments. Depending on the content of the record,

this may mean that Sender-ID heuristics would be applied incorrectly

to a message. Depending on the actions associated by the recipient

with those heuristics, the message may not be delivered or may be

discarded on receipt.

Participants relying on Sender ID experiment DNS records are warned

that they may lose valid messages in this set of circumstances.

aParticipants publishing SPF experiment DNS records should consider

the advice given in section 3.4 of RFC 4406 and may wish to publish

both v=spf1 and spf2.0 records to avoid the conflict.

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 1]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

Participants in the Sender-ID experiment need to be aware that the

way Resent-* header fields are used will result in failure to receive

legitimate email when interacting with standards-compliant systems

(specifically automatic forwarders which comply with the standards by

not adding Resent-* headers, and systems which comply with RFC 822

but have not yet implemented RFC 2822 Resent-* semantics). It would

be inappropriate to advance Sender-ID on the standards track without

resolving this interoperability problem.

The community is invited to observe the success or failure of the two

approaches during the two years following publication, in order that

a community consensus can be reached in the future.

Abstract

E-mail on the Internet can be forged in a number of ways. In

particular, existing protocols place no restriction on what a sending

host can use as the reverse-path of a message or the domain given on

the SMTP HELO/EHLO commands. This document describes version 1 of

the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) protocol, whereby a domain may

explicitly authorize the hosts that are allowed to use its domain

name, and a receiving host may check such authorization.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ....................................................4

1.1. Protocol Status ............................................4

1.2. Terminology ................................................5

2. Operation .......................................................5

2.1. The HELO Identity ..........................................5

2.2. The MAIL FROM Identity .....................................5

2.3. Publishing Authorization ...................................6

2.4. Checking Authorization .....................................6

2.5. Interpreting the Result ....................................7

2.5.1. None ................................................8

2.5.2. Neutral .............................................8

2.5.3. Pass ................................................8

2.5.4. Fail ................................................8

2.5.5. SoftFail ............................................9

2.5.6. TempError ...........................................9

2.5.7. PermError ...........................................9

3. SPF Records .....................................................9

3.1. Publishing ................................................10

3.1.1. DNS Resource Record Types ..........................10

3.1.2. Multiple DNS Records ...............................11

3.1.3. Multiple Strings in a Single DNS record ............11

3.1.4. Record Size ........................................11

3.1.5. Wildcard Records ...................................11

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 2]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

4. The check_host() Function ......................................12

4.1. Arguments .................................................12

4.2. Results ...................................................13

4.3. Initial Processing ........................................13

4.4. Record Lookup .............................................13

4.5. Selecting Records .........................................13

4.6. Record Evaluation .........................................14

4.6.1. Term Evaluation ....................................14

4.6.2. Mechanisms .........................................15

4.6.3. Modifiers ..........................................15

4.7. Default Result ............................................16

4.8. Domain Specification ......................................16

5. Mechanism Definitions ..........................................16

5.1. "all" .....................................................17

5.2. "include" .................................................18

5.3. "a" .......................................................19

5.4. "mx" ......................................................20

5.5. "ptr" .....................................................20

5.6. "ip4" and "ip6" ...........................................21

5.7. "exists" ..................................................22

6. Modifier Definitions ...........................................22

6.1. redirect: Redirected Query ................................23

6.2. exp: Explanation ..........................................23

7. The Received-SPF Header Field ..................................25

8. Macros .........................................................27

8.1. Macro Definitions .........................................27

8.2. Expansion Examples ........................................30

9. Implications ...................................................31

9.1. Sending Domains ...........................................31

9.2. Mailing Lists .............................................32

9.3. Forwarding Services and Aliases ...........................32

9.4. Mail Services .............................................34

9.5. MTA Relays ................................................34

10. Security Considerations .......................................35

10.1. Processing Limits ........................................35

10.2. SPF-Authorized E-Mail May Contain Other False

Identities ...............................................37

10.3. Spoofed DNS and IP Data ..................................37

10.4. Cross-User Forgery .......................................37

10.5. Untrusted Information Sources ............................38

10.6. Privacy Exposure .........................................38

11. Contributors and Acknowledgements .............................38

12. IANA Considerations ...........................................39

12.1. The SPF DNS Record Type ..................................39

12.2. The Received-SPF Mail Header Field .......................39

13. References ....................................................39

13.1. Normative References .....................................39

13.2. Informative References ...................................40

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 3]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

Appendix A. Collected ABNF .......................................42

Appendix B. Extended Examples ....................................44

B.1. Simple Examples ..........................................44

B.2. Multiple Domain Example ..................................45

B.3. DNSBL Style Example ......................................46

B.4. Multiple Requirements Example ............................46

1. Introduction

The current E-Mail infrastructure has the property that any host

injecting mail into the mail system can identify itself as any domain

name it wants. Hosts can do this at a variety of levels: in

particular, the session, the envelope, and the mail headers.

Although this feature is desirable in some circumstances, it is a

major obstacle to reducing Unsolicited Bulk E-Mail (UBE, aka spam).

Furthermore, many domain name holders are understandably concerned

about the ease with which other entities may make use of their domain

names, often with malicious intent.

This document defines a protocol by which domain owners may authorize

hosts to use their domain name in the "MAIL FROM" or "HELO" identity.

Compliant domain holders publish Sender Policy Framework (SPF)

records specifying which hosts are permitted to use their names, and

compliant mail receivers use the published SPF records to test the

authorization of sending Mail Transfer Agents (MTAs) using a given

"HELO" or "MAIL FROM" identity during a mail transaction.

An additional benefit to mail receivers is that after the use of an

identity is verified, local policy decisions about the mail can be

made based on the sender's domain, rather than the host's IP address.

This is advantageous because reputation of domain names is likely to

be more accurate than reputation of host IP addresses. Furthermore,

if a claimed identity fails verification, local policy can take

stronger action against such E-Mail, such as rejecting it.

1.1. Protocol Status

SPF has been in development since the summer of 2003 and has seen

deployment beyond the developers beginning in December 2003. The

design of SPF slowly evolved until the spring of 2004 and has since

stabilized. There have been quite a number of forms of SPF, some

written up as documents, some submitted as Internet Drafts, and many

discussed and debated in development forums.

The goal of this document is to clearly document the protocol defined

by earlier draft specifications of SPF as used in existing

implementations. This conception of SPF is sometimes called "SPF

Classic". It is understood that particular implementations and

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 4]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

deployments may differ from, and build upon, this work. It is hoped

that we have nonetheless captured the common understanding of SPF

version 1.

1.2. Terminology

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",

"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this

document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

This document is concerned with the portion of a mail message

commonly called "envelope sender", "return path", "reverse path",

"bounce address", "2821 FROM", or "MAIL FROM". Since these terms are

either not well defined or often used casually, this document defines

the "MAIL FROM" identity in Section 2.2. Note that other terms that

may superficially look like the common terms, such as "reverse-path",

are used only with the defined meanings from normative documents.

2. Operation

2.1. The HELO Identity

The "HELO" identity derives from either the SMTP HELO or EHLO command

(see [RFC2821]). These commands supply the SMTP client (sending

host) for the SMTP session. Note that requirements for the domain

presented in the EHLO or HELO command are not always clear to the

sending party, and SPF clients must be prepared for the "HELO"

identity to be malformed or an IP address literal. At the time of

this writing, many legitimate E-Mails are delivered with invalid HELO

domains.

It is RECOMMENDED that SPF clients not only check the "MAIL FROM"

identity, but also separately check the "HELO" identity by applying

the check_host() function (Section 4) to the "HELO" identity as the

2.2. The MAIL FROM Identity

The "MAIL FROM" identity derives from the SMTP MAIL command (see

[RFC2821]). This command supplies the "reverse-path" for a message,

which generally consists of the sender mailbox, and is the mailbox to

which notification messages are to be sent if there are problems

delivering the message.

[RFC2821] allows the reverse-path to be null (see Section 4.5.5 in

RFC 2821). In this case, there is no explicit sender mailbox, and

such a message can be assumed to be a notification message from the

mail system itself. When the reverse-path is null, this document

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 5]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

defines the "MAIL FROM" identity to be the mailbox composed of the

localpart "postmaster" and the "HELO" identity (which may or may not

have been checked separately before).

SPF clients MUST check the "MAIL FROM" identity. SPF clients check

the "MAIL FROM" identity by applying the check_host() function to the

"MAIL FROM" identity as the <sender>. </sender>

2.3. Publishing Authorization

An SPF-compliant domain MUST publish a valid SPF record as described

in Section 3. This record authorizes the use of the domain name in

the "HELO" and "MAIL FROM" identities by the MTAs it specifies.

If domain owners choose to publish SPF records, it is RECOMMENDED

that they end in "-all", or redirect to other records that do, so

that a definitive determination of authorization can be made.

Domain holders may publish SPF records that explicitly authorize no

hosts if mail should never originate using that domain.

When changing SPF records, care must be taken to ensure that there is

a transition period so that the old policy remains valid until all

legitimate E-Mail has been checked.

2.4. Checking Authorization

A mail receiver can perform a set of SPF checks for each mail message

it receives. An SPF check tests the authorization of a client host

to emit mail with a given identity. Typically, such checks are done

by a receiving MTA, but can be performed elsewhere in the mail

processing chain so long as the required information is available and

reliable. At least the "MAIL FROM" identity MUST be checked, but it

is RECOMMENDED that the "HELO" identity also be checked beforehand.

Without explicit approval of the domain owner, checking other

identities against SPF version 1 records is NOT RECOMMENDED because

there are cases that are known to give incorrect results. For

example, almost all mailing lists rewrite the "MAIL FROM" identity

(see Section 9.2), but some do not change any other identities in the

message. The scenario described in Section 9.3, sub-section 1.2, is

another example. Documents that define other identities should

define the method for explicit approval.

It is possible that mail receivers will use the SPF check as part of

a larger set of tests on incoming mail. The results of other tests

may influence whether or not a particular SPF check is performed.

For example, finding the sending host's IP address on a local white

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 6]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

list may cause all other tests to be skipped and all mail from that

host to be accepted.

When a mail receiver decides to perform an SPF check, it MUST use a

correctly-implemented check_host() function (Section 4) evaluated

with the correct parameters. Although the test as a whole is

optional, once it has been decided to perform a test it must be

performed as specified so that the correct semantics are preserved

between publisher and receiver.

To make the test, the mail receiver MUST evaluate the check_host()

function with the arguments set as follows:

<ip> - the IP address of the SMTP client that is emitting the </ip>

mail, either IPv4 or IPv6.

<domain> - the domain portion of the "MAIL FROM" or "HELO" identity. </domain>

<sender> - the "MAIL FROM" or "HELO" identity. </sender>

Note that the <domain> argument may not be a well-formed domain name. </domain>

For example, if the reverse-path was null, then the EHLO/HELO domain

is used, with its associated problems (see Section 2.1). In these

cases, check_host() is defined in Section 4.3 to return a "None"

result.

Although invalid, malformed, or non-existent domains cause SPF checks

to return "None" because no SPF record can be found, it has long been

the policy of many MTAs to reject E-Mail from such domains,

especially in the case of invalid "MAIL FROM". In order to prevent

the circumvention of SPF records, rejecting E-Mail from invalid

domains should be considered.

Implementations must take care to correctly extract the <domain> from </domain>

the data given with the SMTP MAIL FROM command as many MTAs will

still accept such things as source routes (see [RFC2821], Appendix

C), the %-hack (see [RFC1123]), and bang paths (see [RFC1983]).

These archaic features have been maliciously used to bypass security

systems.

2.5. Interpreting the Result

This section describes how software that performs the authorization

should interpret the results of the check_host() function. The

authorization check SHOULD be performed during the processing of the

SMTP transaction that sends the mail. This allows errors to be

returned directly to the sending MTA by way of SMTP replies.

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 7]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

Performing the authorization after the SMTP transaction has finished

may cause problems, such as the following: (1) It may be difficult to

accurately extract the required information from potentially

deceptive headers; (2) legitimate E-Mail may fail because the

sender's policy may have since changed.

Generating non-delivery notifications to forged identities that have

failed the authorization check is generally abusive and against the

explicit wishes of the identity owner.

2.5.1. None

A result of "None" means that no records were published by the domain

or that no checkable sender domain could be determined from the given

identity. The checking software cannot ascertain whether or not the

client host is authorized.

2.5.2. Neutral

The domain owner has explicitly stated that he cannot or does not

want to assert whether or not the IP address is authorized. A

"Neutral" result MUST be treated exactly like the "None" result; the

distinction exists only for informational purposes. Treating

"Neutral" more harshly than "None" would discourage domain owners

from testing the use of SPF records (see Section 9.1).

2.5.3. Pass

A "Pass" result means that the client is authorized to inject mail

with the given identity. The domain can now, in the sense of

reputation, be considered responsible for sending the message.

Further policy checks can now proceed with confidence in the

legitimate use of the identity.

2.5.4. Fail

A "Fail" result is an explicit statement that the client is not

authorized to use the domain in the given identity. The checking

software can choose to mark the mail based on this or to reject the

mail outright.

If the checking software chooses to reject the mail during the SMTP

transaction, then it SHOULD use an SMTP reply code of 550 (see

[RFC2821]) and, if supported, the 5.7.1 Delivery Status Notification

(DSN) code (see [RFC3464]), in addition to an appropriate reply text.

The check_host() function may return either a default explanation

string or one from the domain that published the SPF records (see

Section 6.2). If the information does not originate with the

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 8]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

checking software, it should be made clear that the text is provided

by the sender's domain. For example:

550-5.7.1 SPF MAIL FROM check failed:

550-5.7.1 The domain example.com explains:

550 5.7.1 Please see http://www.example.com/mailpolicy.html

2.5.5. SoftFail

A "SoftFail" result should be treated as somewhere between a "Fail"

and a "Neutral". The domain believes the host is not authorized but

is not willing to make that strong of a statement. Receiving

software SHOULD NOT reject the message based solely on this result,

but MAY subject the message to closer scrutiny than normal.

The domain owner wants to discourage the use of this host and thus

desires limited feedback when a "SoftFail" result occurs. For

example, the recipient's Mail User Agent (MUA) could highlight the

"SoftFail" status, or the receiving MTA could give the sender a

message using a technique called "greylisting" whereby the MTA can

issue an SMTP reply code of 451 (4.3.0 DSN code) with a note the

first time the message is received, but accept it the second time.

2.5.6. TempError

A "TempError" result means that the SPF client encountered a

transient error while performing the check. Checking software can

choose to accept or temporarily reject the message. If the message

is rejected during the SMTP transaction for this reason, the software

SHOULD use an SMTP reply code of 451 and, if supported, the 4.4.3 DSN

code.

2.5.7. PermError

A "PermError" result means that the domain's published records could

not be correctly interpreted. This signals an error condition that

requires manual intervention to be resolved, as opposed to the

TempError result. Be aware that if the domain owner uses macros

(Section 8), it is possible that this result is due to the checked

identities having an unexpected format.

3. SPF Records

An SPF record is a DNS Resource Record (RR) that declares which hosts

are, and are not, authorized to use a domain name for the "HELO" and

"MAIL FROM" identities. Loosely, the record partitions all hosts

into permitted and not-permitted sets (though some hosts might fall

into neither category).

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 9]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

The SPF record is a single string of text. An example record is the

following:

v=spf1 +mx a:colo.example.com/28 -all

This record has a version of "spf1" and three directives: "+mx",

"a:colo.example.com/28" (the + is implied), and "-all".

3.1. Publishing

Domain owners wishing to be SPF compliant must publish SPF records

for the hosts that are used in the "MAIL FROM" and "HELO" identities.

The SPF records are placed in the DNS tree at the host name it

pertains to, not a subdomain under it, such as is done with SRV

records. This is the same whether the TXT or SPF RR type (see

Section 3.1.1) is used.

The example above in Section 3 might be published via these lines in

a domain zone file:

example.com. TXT "v=spf1 +mx a:colo.example.com/28 -all"

smtp-out.example.com. TXT "v=spf1 a -all"

When publishing via TXT records, beware of other TXT records

published there for other purposes. They may cause problems with

size limits (see Section 3.1.4).

3.1.1. DNS Resource Record Types

This document defines a new DNS RR of type SPF, code 99. The format

of this type is identical to the TXT RR [RFC1035]. For either type,

the character content of the record is encoded as [US-ASCII].

It is recognized that the current practice (using a TXT record) is

not optimal, but it is necessary because there are a number of DNS

server and resolver implementations in common use that cannot handle

the new RR type. The two-record-type scheme provides a forward path

to the better solution of using an RR type reserved for this purpose.

An SPF-compliant domain name SHOULD have SPF records of both RR

types. A compliant domain name MUST have a record of at least one

type. If a domain has records of both types, they MUST have

identical content. For example, instead of publishing just one

record as in Section 3.1 above, it is better to publish:

example.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 +mx a:colo.example.com/28 -all"

example.com. IN SPF "v=spf1 +mx a:colo.example.com/28 -all"

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 10]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

Example RRs in this document are shown with the TXT record type;

however, they could be published with the SPF type or with both

types.

3.1.2. Multiple DNS Records

A domain name MUST NOT have multiple records that would cause an

authorization check to select more than one record. See Section 4.5

for the selection rules.

3.1.3. Multiple Strings in a Single DNS record

As defined in [RFC1035] sections 3.3.14 and 3.3, a single text DNS

record (either TXT or SPF RR types) can be composed of more than one

string. If a published record contains multiple strings, then the

record MUST be treated as if those strings are concatenated together

without adding spaces. For example:

IN TXT "v=spf1 .... first" "second string..."

MUST be treated as equivalent to

IN TXT "v=spf1 .... firstsecond string..."

SPF or TXT records containing multiple strings are useful in

constructing records that would exceed the 255-byte maximum length of

a string within a single TXT or SPF RR record.

3.1.4. Record Size

The published SPF record for a given domain name SHOULD remain small

enough that the results of a query for it will fit within 512 octets.

This will keep even older DNS implementations from falling over to

TCP. Since the answer size is dependent on many things outside the

scope of this document, it is only possible to give this guideline:

If the combined length of the DNS name and the text of all the

records of a given type (TXT or SPF) is under 450 characters, then

DNS answers should fit in UDP packets. Note that when computing the

sizes for queries of the TXT format, one must take into account any

other TXT records published at the domain name. Records that are too

long to fit in a single UDP packet MAY be silently ignored by SPF

clients.

3.1.5. Wildcard Records

Use of wildcard records for publishing is not recommended. Care must

be taken if wildcard records are used. If a domain publishes

wildcard MX records, it may want to publish wildcard declarations,

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 11]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

subject to the same requirements and problems. In particular, the

declaration must be repeated for any host that has any RR records at

all, and for subdomains thereof. For example, the example given in

[RFC1034], Section 4.3.3, could be extended with the following:

X.COM. MX 10 A.X.COM

X.COM. TXT "v=spf1 a:A.X.COM -all"

*.X.COM. MX 10 A.X.COM

*.X.COM. TXT "v=spf1 a:A.X.COM -all"

A.X.COM. A 1.2.3.4

A.X.COM. MX 10 A.X.COM

A.X.COM. TXT "v=spf1 a:A.X.COM -all"

*.A.X.COM. MX 10 A.X.COM

*.A.X.COM. TXT "v=spf1 a:A.X.COM -all"

Notice that SPF records must be repeated twice for every name within

the domain: once for the name, and once with a wildcard to cover the

tree under the name.

Use of wildcards is discouraged in general as they cause every name

under the domain to exist and queries against arbitrary names will

never return RCODE 3 (Name Error).

4. The check_host() Function

The check_host() function fetches SPF records, parses them, and

interprets them to determine whether a particular host is or is not

permitted to send mail with a given identity. Mail receivers that

perform this check MUST correctly evaluate the check_host() function

as described here.

Implementations MAY use a different algorithm than the canonical

algorithm defined here, so long as the results are the same in all

cases.

4.1. Arguments

The check_host() function takes these arguments:

<ip> - the IP address of the SMTP client that is emitting the </ip>

mail, either IPv4 or IPv6.

<domain> - the domain that provides the sought-after authorization </domain>

information; initially, the domain portion of the "MAIL

FROM" or "HELO" identity.

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 12]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

<sender> - the "MAIL FROM" or "HELO" identity. </sender>

The domain portion of <sender> will usually be the same as the </sender>

<domain> argument when check_host() is initially evaluated. However, </domain>

this will generally not be true for recursive evaluations (see

Section 5.2 below).

Actual implementations of the check_host() function may need

additional arguments.

4.2. Results

The function check_host() can return one of several results described

in Section 2.5. Based on the result, the action to be taken is

determined by the local policies of the receiver.

4.3. Initial Processing

If the <domain> is malformed (label longer than 63 characters, zero- </domain>

length label not at the end, etc.) or is not a fully qualified domain

name, or if the DNS lookup returns "domain does not exist" (RCODE 3),

check_host() immediately returns the result "None".

If the <sender> has no localpart, substitute the string "postmaster" </sender>

for the localpart.

4.4. Record Lookup

In accordance with how the records are published (see Section 3.1

above), a DNS query needs to be made for the <domain> name, querying </domain>

for either RR type TXT, SPF, or both. If both SPF and TXT RRs are

looked up, the queries MAY be done in parallel.

If all DNS lookups that are made return a server failure (RCODE 2),

or other error (RCODE other than 0 or 3), or time out, then

check_host() exits immediately with the result "TempError".

4.5. Selecting Records

Records begin with a version section:

record = version terms *SP

version = "v=spf1"

Starting with the set of records that were returned by the lookup,

record selection proceeds in two steps:

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 13]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

1. Records that do not begin with a version section of exactly

"v=spf1" are discarded. Note that the version section is

terminated either by an SP character or the end of the record. A

record with a version section of "v=spf10" does not match and must

be discarded.

2. If any records of type SPF are in the set, then all records of

type TXT are discarded.

After the above steps, there should be exactly one record remaining

and evaluation can proceed. If there are two or more records

remaining, then check_host() exits immediately with the result of

"PermError".

If no matching records are returned, an SPF client MUST assume that

the domain makes no SPF declarations. SPF processing MUST stop and

return "None".

4.6. Record Evaluation

After one SPF record has been selected, the check_host() function

parses and interprets it to find a result for the current test. If

there are any syntax errors, check_host() returns immediately with

the result "PermError".

Implementations MAY choose to parse the entire record first and

return "PermError" if the record is not syntactically well formed.

However, in all cases, any syntax errors anywhere in the record MUST

be detected.

4.6.1. Term Evaluation

There are two types of terms: mechanisms and modifiers. A record

contains an ordered list of these as specified in the following

Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF).

terms = *( 1*SP ( directive / modifier ) )

directive = [ qualifier ] mechanism

qualifier = "+" / "-" / "?" / "~"

mechanism = ( all / include

/ A / MX / PTR / IP4 / IP6 / exists )

modifier = redirect / explanation / unknown-modifier

unknown-modifier = name "=" macro-string

name = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "_" / "." )

Most mechanisms allow a ":" or "/" character after the name.

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 14]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

Modifiers always contain an equals ('=') character immediately after

the name, and before any ":" or "/" characters that may be part of

the macro-string.

Terms that do not contain any of "=", ":", or "/" are mechanisms, as

defined in Section 5.

As per the definition of the ABNF notation in [RFC4234], mechanism

and modifier names are case-insensitive.

4.6.2. Mechanisms

Each mechanism is considered in turn from left to right. If there

are no more mechanisms, the result is specified in Section 4.7.

When a mechanism is evaluated, one of three things can happen: it can

match, not match, or throw an exception.

If it matches, processing ends and the qualifier value is returned as

the result of that record. If it does not match, processing

continues with the next mechanism. If it throws an exception,

mechanism processing ends and the exception value is returned.

The possible qualifiers, and the results they return are as follows:

"+" Pass

"-" Fail

"~" SoftFail

"?" Neutral

The qualifier is optional and defaults to "+".

When a mechanism matches and the qualifier is "-", then a "Fail"

result is returned and the explanation string is computed as

described in Section 6.2.

The specific mechanisms are described in Section 5.

4.6.3. Modifiers

Modifiers are not mechanisms: they do not return match or not-match.

Instead they provide additional information. Although modifiers do

not directly affect the evaluation of the record, the "redirect"

modifier has an effect after all the mechanisms have been evaluated.

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 15]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

4.7. Default Result

If none of the mechanisms match and there is no "redirect" modifier,

then the check_host() returns a result of "Neutral", just as if

"?all" were specified as the last directive. If there is a

"redirect" modifier, check_host() proceeds as defined in Section 6.1.

Note that records SHOULD always use either a "redirect" modifier or

an "all" mechanism to explicitly terminate processing.

For example:

v=spf1 +mx -all

v=spf1 +mx redirect=_spf.example.com

4.8. Domain Specification

Several of these mechanisms and modifiers have a <domain-spec></domain-spec>

section. The <domain-spec> string is macro expanded (see Section 8). </domain-spec>

The resulting string is the common presentation form of a fully-

qualified DNS name: a series of labels separated by periods. This

domain is called the <target-name> in the rest of this document. </target-name>

Note: The result of the macro expansion is not subject to any further

escaping. Hence, this facility cannot produce all characters that

are legal in a DNS label (e.g., the control characters). However,

this facility is powerful enough to express legal host names and

common utility labels (such as "_spf") that are used in DNS.

For several mechanisms, the <domain-spec> is optional. If it is not </domain-spec>

provided, the <domain> is used as the <target-name>. </target-name></domain>

5. Mechanism Definitions

This section defines two types of mechanisms.

Basic mechanisms contribute to the language framework. They do not

specify a particular type of authorization scheme.

all

include

Designated sender mechanisms are used to designate a set of <ip></ip>

addresses as being permitted or not permitted to use the <domain> for </domain>

sending mail.

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 16]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

ptr

ip4

ip6

exists

The following conventions apply to all mechanisms that perform a

comparison between <ip> and an IP address at any point: </ip>

If no CIDR-length is given in the directive, then <ip> and the IP </ip>

address are compared for equality. (Here, CIDR is Classless Inter-

Domain Routing.)

If a CIDR-length is specified, then only the specified number of

high-order bits of <ip> and the IP address are compared for equality. </ip>

When any mechanism fetches host addresses to compare with <ip>, when </ip>

<ip> is an IPv4 address, A records are fetched, when <ip> is an IPv6 </ip></ip>

address, AAAA records are fetched. Even if the SMTP connection is

via IPv6, an IPv4-mapped IPv6 IP address (see [RFC3513], Section

2.5.5) MUST still be considered an IPv4 address.

Several mechanisms rely on information fetched from DNS. For these

DNS queries, except where noted, if the DNS server returns an error

(RCODE other than 0 or 3) or the query times out, the mechanism

throws the exception "TempError". If the server returns "domain does

not exist" (RCODE 3), then evaluation of the mechanism continues as

if the server returned no error (RCODE 0) and zero answer records.

5.1. "all"

all = "all"

The "all" mechanism is a test that always matches. It is used as the

rightmost mechanism in a record to provide an explicit default.

For example:

v=spf1 a mx -all

Mechanisms after "all" will never be tested. Any "redirect" modifier

(Section 6.1) has no effect when there is an "all" mechanism.

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 17]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

5.2. "include"

include = "include" ":" domain-spec

The "include" mechanism triggers a recursive evaluation of

check_host(). The domain-spec is expanded as per Section 8. Then

check_host() is evaluated with the resulting string as the <domain>. </domain>

The <ip> and <sender> arguments remain the same as in the current </sender></ip>

evaluation of check_host().

In hindsight, the name "include" was poorly chosen. Only the

evaluated result of the referenced SPF record is used, rather than

acting as if the referenced SPF record was literally included in the

first. For example, evaluating a "-all" directive in the referenced

record does not terminate the overall processing and does not

necessarily result in an overall "Fail". (Better names for this

mechanism would have been "if-pass", "on-pass", etc.)

The "include" mechanism makes it possible for one domain to designate

multiple administratively-independent domains. For example, a vanity

domain "example.net" might send mail using the servers of

administratively-independent domains example.com and example.org.

Example.net could say

IN TXT "v=spf1 include:example.com include:example.org -all"

This would direct check_host() to, in effect, check the records of

example.com and example.org for a "Pass" result. Only if the host

were not permitted for either of those domains would the result be

"Fail".

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 18]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

Whether this mechanism matches, does not match, or throws an

exception depends on the result of the recursive evaluation of

check_host():

+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+

| A recursive check_host() result | Causes the "include" mechanism |

| of: | to: |

+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+

| Pass | match |

| | |

| Fail | not match |

| | |

| SoftFail | not match |

| | |

| Neutral | not match |

| | |

| TempError | throw TempError |

| | |

| PermError | throw PermError |

| | |

| None | throw PermError |

+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+

The "include" mechanism is intended for crossing administrative

boundaries. Although it is possible to use includes to consolidate

multiple domains that share the same set of designated hosts, domains

are encouraged to use redirects where possible, and to minimize the

number of includes within a single administrative domain. For

example, if example.com and example.org were managed by the same

entity, and if the permitted set of hosts for both domains was

"mx:example.com", it would be possible for example.org to specify

"include:example.com", but it would be preferable to specify

"redirect=example.com" or even "mx:example.com".

5.3. "a"

This mechanism matches if <ip> is one of the <target-name>'s IP </target-name></ip>

addresses.

A = "a" [ ":" domain-spec ] [ dual-cidr-length ]

An address lookup is done on the <target-name>. The <ip> is compared </ip></target-name>

to the returned address(es). If any address matches, the mechanism

matches.

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 19]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

5.4. "mx"

This mechanism matches if <ip> is one of the MX hosts for a domain </ip>

name.

MX = "mx" [ ":" domain-spec ] [ dual-cidr-length ]

check_host() first performs an MX lookup on the <target-name>. Then </target-name>

it performs an address lookup on each MX name returned. The <ip> is </ip>

compared to each returned IP address. To prevent Denial of Service

(DoS) attacks, more than 10 MX names MUST NOT be looked up during the

evaluation of an "mx" mechanism (see Section 10). If any address

matches, the mechanism matches.

Note regarding implicit MXs: If the <target-name> has no MX records, </target-name>

check_host() MUST NOT pretend the target is its single MX, and MUST

NOT default to an A lookup on the <target-name> directly. This </target-name>

behavior breaks with the legacy "implicit MX" rule. See [RFC2821],

Section 5. If such behavior is desired, the publisher should specify

an "a" directive.

5.5. "ptr"

This mechanism tests whether the DNS reverse-mapping for <ip> exists </ip>

and correctly points to a domain name within a particular domain.

PTR = "ptr" [ ":" domain-spec ]

First, the <ip>'s name is looked up using this procedure: perform a </ip>

DNS reverse-mapping for <ip>, looking up the corresponding PTR record </ip>

in "in-addr.arpa." if the address is an IPv4 one and in "ip6.arpa."

if it is an IPv6 address. For each record returned, validate the

domain name by looking up its IP address. To prevent DoS attacks,

more than 10 PTR names MUST NOT be looked up during the evaluation of

a "ptr" mechanism (see Section 10). If <ip> is among the returned IP </ip>

addresses, then that domain name is validated. In pseudocode:

sending-domain_names := ptr_lookup(sending-host_IP); if more than 10

sending-domain_names are found, use at most 10. for each name in

(sending-domain_names) {

IP_addresses := a_lookup(name);

if the sending-domain_IP is one of the IP_addresses {

validated-sending-domain_names += name;

} }

Check all validated domain names to see if they end in the

<target-name> domain. If any do, this mechanism matches. If no </target-name>

validated domain name can be found, or if none of the validated

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 20]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

domain names end in the <target-name>, this mechanism fails to match. </target-name>

If a DNS error occurs while doing the PTR RR lookup, then this

mechanism fails to match. If a DNS error occurs while doing an A RR

lookup, then that domain name is skipped and the search continues.

Pseudocode:

for each name in (validated-sending-domain_names) {

if name ends in <domain-spec>, return match. </domain-spec>

if name is <domain-spec>, return match. </domain-spec>

}

return no-match.

This mechanism matches if the <target-name> is either an ancestor of </target-name>

a validated domain name or if the <target-name> and a validated </target-name>

domain name are the same. For example: "mail.example.com" is within

the domain "example.com", but "mail.bad-example.com" is not.

Note: Use of this mechanism is discouraged because it is slow, it is

not as reliable as other mechanisms in cases of DNS errors, and it

places a large burden on the arpa name servers. If used, proper PTR

records must be in place for the domain's hosts and the "ptr"

mechanism should be one of the last mechanisms checked.

5.6. "ip4" and "ip6"

These mechanisms test whether <ip> is contained within a given IP </ip>

network.

IP4 = "ip4" ":" ip4-network [ ip4-cidr-length ]

IP6 = "ip6" ":" ip6-network [ ip6-cidr-length ]

ip4-cidr-length = "/" 1*DIGIT

ip6-cidr-length = "/" 1*DIGIT

dual-cidr-length = [ ip4-cidr-length ] [ "/" ip6-cidr-length ]

ip4-network = qnum "." qnum "." qnum "." qnum

qnum = DIGIT ; 0-9

/ %x31-39 DIGIT ; 10-99

/ "1" 2DIGIT ; 100-199

/ "2" %x30-34 DIGIT ; 200-249

/ "25" %x30-35 ; 250-255

; as per conventional dotted quad notation. e.g., 192.0.2.0

ip6-network = <as section per></as>

; e.g., 2001:DB8::CD30

The <ip> is compared to the given network. If CIDR-length high-order </ip>

bits match, the mechanism matches.

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 21]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

If ip4-cidr-length is omitted, it is taken to be "/32". If

ip6-cidr-length is omitted, it is taken to be "/128". It is not

permitted to omit parts of the IP address instead of using CIDR

notations. That is, use 192.0.2.0/24 instead of 192.0.2.

5.7. "exists"

This mechanism is used to construct an arbitrary domain name that is

used for a DNS A record query. It allows for complicated schemes

involving arbitrary parts of the mail envelope to determine what is

permitted.

exists = "exists" ":" domain-spec

The domain-spec is expanded as per Section 8. The resulting domain

name is used for a DNS A RR lookup. If any A record is returned,

this mechanism matches. The lookup type is A even when the

connection type is IPv6.

Domains can use this mechanism to specify arbitrarily complex

queries. For example, suppose example.com publishes the record:

v=spf1 exists:%{ir}.%{l1r+-}._spf.%{d} -all

The <target-name> might expand to </target-name>

"1.2.0.192.someuser._spf.example.com". This makes fine-grained

decisions possible at the level of the user and client IP address.

This mechanism enables queries that mimic the style of tests that

existing anti-spam DNS blacklists (DNSBL) use.

6. Modifier Definitions

Modifiers are name/value pairs that provide additional information.

Modifiers always have an "=" separating the name and the value.

The modifiers defined in this document ("redirect" and "exp") MAY

appear anywhere in the record, but SHOULD appear at the end, after

all mechanisms. Ordering of these two modifiers does not matter.

These two modifiers MUST NOT appear in a record more than once each.

If they do, then check_host() exits with a result of "PermError".

Unrecognized modifiers MUST be ignored no matter where in a record,

or how often. This allows implementations of this document to

gracefully handle records with modifiers that are defined in other

specifications.

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 22]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

6.1. redirect: Redirected Query

If all mechanisms fail to match, and a "redirect" modifier is

present, then processing proceeds as follows:

redirect = "redirect" "=" domain-spec

The domain-spec portion of the redirect section is expanded as per

the macro rules in Section 8. Then check_host() is evaluated with

the resulting string as the <domain>. The <ip> and <sender></sender></ip></domain>

arguments remain the same as current evaluation of check_host().

The result of this new evaluation of check_host() is then considered

the result of the current evaluation with the exception that if no

SPF record is found, or if the target-name is malformed, the result

is a "PermError" rather than "None".

Note that the newly-queried domain may itself specify redirect

processing.

This facility is intended for use by organizations that wish to apply

the same record to multiple domains. For example:

la.example.com. TXT "v=spf1 redirect=_spf.example.com"

ny.example.com. TXT "v=spf1 redirect=_spf.example.com"

sf.example.com. TXT "v=spf1 redirect=_spf.example.com"

_spf.example.com. TXT "v=spf1 mx:example.com -all"

In this example, mail from any of the three domains is described by

the same record. This can be an administrative advantage.

Note: In general, the domain "A" cannot reliably use a redirect to

another domain "B" not under the same administrative control. Since

the <sender> stays the same, there is no guarantee that the record at </sender>

domain "B" will correctly work for mailboxes in domain "A",

especially if domain "B" uses mechanisms involving localparts. An

"include" directive may be more appropriate.

For clarity, it is RECOMMENDED that any "redirect" modifier appear as

the very last term in a record.

6.2. exp: Explanation

explanation = "exp" "=" domain-spec

If check_host() results in a "Fail" due to a mechanism match (such as

"-all"), and the "exp" modifier is present, then the explanation

string returned is computed as described below. If no "exp" modifier

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 23]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

is present, then either a default explanation string or an empty

explanation string may be returned.

The <domain-spec> is macro expanded (see Section 8) and becomes the </domain-spec>

<target-name>. The DNS TXT record for the <target-name> is fetched. </target-name></target-name>

If <domain-spec> is empty, or there are any DNS processing errors </domain-spec>

(any RCODE other than 0), or if no records are returned, or if more

than one record is returned, or if there are syntax errors in the

explanation string, then proceed as if no exp modifier was given.

The fetched TXT record's strings are concatenated with no spaces, and

then treated as an <explain-string>, which is macro-expanded. This </explain-string>

final result is the explanation string. Implementations MAY limit

the length of the resulting explanation string to allow for other

protocol constraints and/or reasonable processing limits. Since the

explanation string is intended for an SMTP response and [RFC2821]

Section 2.4 says that responses are in [US-ASCII], the explanation

string is also limited to US-ASCII.

Software evaluating check_host() can use this string to communicate

information from the publishing domain in the form of a short message

or URL. Software SHOULD make it clear that the explanation string

comes from a third party. For example, it can prepend the macro

string "%{o} explains: " to the explanation, such as shown in Section

2.5.4.

Suppose example.com has this record:

v=spf1 mx -all exp=explain._spf.%{d}

Here are some examples of possible explanation TXT records at

explain._spf.example.com:

"Mail from example.com should only be sent by its own servers."

-- a simple, constant message

"%{i} is not one of %{d}'s designated mail servers."

-- a message with a little more information, including the IP

address that failed the check

"See http://%{d}/why.html?s=%{S}&i=%{I}"

-- a complicated example that constructs a URL with the

arguments to check_host() so that a web page can be

generated with detailed, custom instructions

Note: During recursion into an "include" mechanism, an exp= modifier

from the <target-name> MUST NOT be used. In contrast, when executing </target-name>

Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 24]

RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006

a "redirect" modifier, an exp= modifier from the original domain MUST

NOT be used.

7. The Received-SPF Header Field

It is RECOMMENDED that SMTP receivers record the result of SPF

processing in the message header. If an SMTP receiver chooses to do

so, it SHOULD use the "Received-SPF" header field defined here for

each identity that was checked. This information is intended for the

recipient. (Information intended for the sender is described in

Section 6.2, Explanation.)

The Received-SPF header field is a trace field (see [RFC2822] Section

3.6.7) and SHOULD be prepended to the existing header, above the

Received: field that is generated by the SMTP receiver. It MUST

appear above all other Received-SPF fields in the message. The

header field has the following format:

header-field = "Received-SPF:" [CFWS] result FWS [comment FWS]

[ key-value-list ] CRLF

result = "Pass" / "Fail" / "SoftFail" / "Neutral" /

"None" / "TempError" / "PermError"

key-value-list = key-value-pair *( ";" [CFWS] key-value-pair )

[";"]

key-value-pair = key [CFWS] "=" ( dot-atom / quoted-string )

key = "client-ip" / "envelope-from" / "helo" /

"problem" / "receiver" / "identity" /

mechanism / "x-" name / name

identity = "mailfrom" ; for the "MAIL FROM" identity

/ "helo" ; for the "HELO" identity

/ name ; other identities

dot-atom = <unquoted per as word></unquoted>

quoted-string = <quoted per as string></quoted>

comment = <comment per as string></comment>

CFWS = <comment or folding white space as per></comment>

<PRE> Network Working Group M. Wong Request for Comments: 4408 W. Schlitt Category: Experimental April 2006 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail, Version 1 Status of This Memo This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). IESG Note The following documents (RFC 4405, RFC 4406, RFC 4407, and RFC 4408) are published simultaneously as Experimental RFCs, although there is no general technical consensus and efforts to reconcile the two approaches have failed. As such, these documents have not received full IETF review and are published "AS-IS" to document the different approaches as they were considered in the MARID working group. The IESG takes no position about which approach is to be preferred and cautions the reader that there are serious open issues for each approach and concerns about using them in tandem. The IESG believes that documenting the different approaches does less harm than not documenting them. Note that the Sender ID experiment may use DNS records that may have been created for the current SPF experiment or earlier versions in this set of experiments. Depending on the content of the record, this may mean that Sender-ID heuristics would be applied incorrectly to a message. Depending on the actions associated by the recipient with those heuristics, the message may not be delivered or may be discarded on receipt. Participants relying on Sender ID experiment DNS records are warned that they may lose valid messages in this set of circumstances. aParticipants publishing SPF experiment DNS records should consider the advice given in section 3.4 of RFC 4406 and may wish to publish both v=spf1 and spf2.0 records to avoid the conflict. Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 1] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 Participants in the Sender-ID experiment need to be aware that the way Resent-* header fields are used will result in failure to receive legitimate email when interacting with standards-compliant systems (specifically automatic forwarders which comply with the standards by not adding Resent-* headers, and systems which comply with RFC 822 but have not yet implemented RFC 2822 Resent-* semantics). It would be inappropriate to advance Sender-ID on the standards track without resolving this interoperability problem. The community is invited to observe the success or failure of the two approaches during the two years following publication, in order that a community consensus can be reached in the future. Abstract E-mail on the Internet can be forged in a number of ways. In particular, existing protocols place no restriction on what a sending host can use as the reverse-path of a message or the domain given on the SMTP HELO/EHLO commands. This document describes version 1 of the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) protocol, whereby a domain may explicitly authorize the hosts that are allowed to use its domain name, and a receiving host may check such authorization. Table of Contents 1. Introduction ....................................................4 1.1. Protocol Status ............................................4 1.2. Terminology ................................................5 2. Operation .......................................................5 2.1. The HELO Identity ..........................................5 2.2. The MAIL FROM Identity .....................................5 2.3. Publishing Authorization ...................................6 2.4. Checking Authorization .....................................6 2.5. Interpreting the Result ....................................7 2.5.1. None ................................................8 2.5.2. Neutral .............................................8 2.5.3. Pass ................................................8 2.5.4. Fail ................................................8 2.5.5. SoftFail ............................................9 2.5.6. TempError ...........................................9 2.5.7. PermError ...........................................9 3. SPF Records .....................................................9 3.1. Publishing ................................................10 3.1.1. DNS Resource Record Types ..........................10 3.1.2. Multiple DNS Records ...............................11 3.1.3. Multiple Strings in a Single DNS record ............11 3.1.4. Record Size ........................................11 3.1.5. Wildcard Records ...................................11 Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 2] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 4. The check_host() Function ......................................12 4.1. Arguments .................................................12 4.2. Results ...................................................13 4.3. Initial Processing ........................................13 4.4. Record Lookup .............................................13 4.5. Selecting Records .........................................13 4.6. Record Evaluation .........................................14 4.6.1. Term Evaluation ....................................14 4.6.2. Mechanisms .........................................15 4.6.3. Modifiers ..........................................15 4.7. Default Result ............................................16 4.8. Domain Specification ......................................16 5. Mechanism Definitions ..........................................16 5.1. "all" .....................................................17 5.2. "include" .................................................18 5.3. "a" .......................................................19 5.4. "mx" ......................................................20 5.5. "ptr" .....................................................20 5.6. "ip4" and "ip6" ...........................................21 5.7. "exists" ..................................................22 6. Modifier Definitions ...........................................22 6.1. redirect: Redirected Query ................................23 6.2. exp: Explanation ..........................................23 7. The Received-SPF Header Field ..................................25 8. Macros .........................................................27 8.1. Macro Definitions .........................................27 8.2. Expansion Examples ........................................30 9. Implications ...................................................31 9.1. Sending Domains ...........................................31 9.2. Mailing Lists .............................................32 9.3. Forwarding Services and Aliases ...........................32 9.4. Mail Services .............................................34 9.5. MTA Relays ................................................34 10. Security Considerations .......................................35 10.1. Processing Limits ........................................35 10.2. SPF-Authorized E-Mail May Contain Other False Identities ...............................................37 10.3. Spoofed DNS and IP Data ..................................37 10.4. Cross-User Forgery .......................................37 10.5. Untrusted Information Sources ............................38 10.6. Privacy Exposure .........................................38 11. Contributors and Acknowledgements .............................38 12. IANA Considerations ...........................................39 12.1. The SPF DNS Record Type ..................................39 12.2. The Received-SPF Mail Header Field .......................39 13. References ....................................................39 13.1. Normative References .....................................39 13.2. Informative References ...................................40 Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 3] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 Appendix A. Collected ABNF .......................................42 Appendix B. Extended Examples ....................................44 B.1. Simple Examples ..........................................44 B.2. Multiple Domain Example ..................................45 B.3. DNSBL Style Example ......................................46 B.4. Multiple Requirements Example ............................46 1. Introduction The current E-Mail infrastructure has the property that any host injecting mail into the mail system can identify itself as any domain name it wants. Hosts can do this at a variety of levels: in particular, the session, the envelope, and the mail headers. Although this feature is desirable in some circumstances, it is a major obstacle to reducing Unsolicited Bulk E-Mail (UBE, aka spam). Furthermore, many domain name holders are understandably concerned about the ease with which other entities may make use of their domain names, often with malicious intent. This document defines a protocol by which domain owners may authorize hosts to use their domain name in the "MAIL FROM" or "HELO" identity. Compliant domain holders publish Sender Policy Framework (SPF) records specifying which hosts are permitted to use their names, and compliant mail receivers use the published SPF records to test the authorization of sending Mail Transfer Agents (MTAs) using a given "HELO" or "MAIL FROM" identity during a mail transaction. An additional benefit to mail receivers is that after the use of an identity is verified, local policy decisions about the mail can be made based on the sender's domain, rather than the host's IP address. This is advantageous because reputation of domain names is likely to be more accurate than reputation of host IP addresses. Furthermore, if a claimed identity fails verification, local policy can take stronger action against such E-Mail, such as rejecting it. 1.1. Protocol Status SPF has been in development since the summer of 2003 and has seen deployment beyond the developers beginning in December 2003. The design of SPF slowly evolved until the spring of 2004 and has since stabilized. There have been quite a number of forms of SPF, some written up as documents, some submitted as Internet Drafts, and many discussed and debated in development forums. The goal of this document is to clearly document the protocol defined by earlier draft specifications of SPF as used in existing implementations. This conception of SPF is sometimes called "SPF Classic". It is understood that particular implementations and Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 4] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 deployments may differ from, and build upon, this work. It is hoped that we have nonetheless captured the common understanding of SPF version 1. 1.2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. This document is concerned with the portion of a mail message commonly called "envelope sender", "return path", "reverse path", "bounce address", "2821 FROM", or "MAIL FROM". Since these terms are either not well defined or often used casually, this document defines the "MAIL FROM" identity in Section 2.2. Note that other terms that may superficially look like the common terms, such as "reverse-path", are used only with the defined meanings from normative documents. 2. Operation 2.1. The HELO Identity The "HELO" identity derives from either the SMTP HELO or EHLO command (see [RFC2821]). These commands supply the SMTP client (sending host) for the SMTP session. Note that requirements for the domain presented in the EHLO or HELO command are not always clear to the sending party, and SPF clients must be prepared for the "HELO" identity to be malformed or an IP address literal. At the time of this writing, many legitimate E-Mails are delivered with invalid HELO domains. It is RECOMMENDED that SPF clients not only check the "MAIL FROM" identity, but also separately check the "HELO" identity by applying the check_host() function (Section 4) to the "HELO" identity as the <SENDER>. 2.2. The MAIL FROM Identity The "MAIL FROM" identity derives from the SMTP MAIL command (see [RFC2821]). This command supplies the "reverse-path" for a message, which generally consists of the sender mailbox, and is the mailbox to which notification messages are to be sent if there are problems delivering the message. [RFC2821] allows the reverse-path to be null (see Section 4.5.5 in RFC 2821). In this case, there is no explicit sender mailbox, and such a message can be assumed to be a notification message from the mail system itself. When the reverse-path is null, this document Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 5] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 defines the "MAIL FROM" identity to be the mailbox composed of the localpart "postmaster" and the "HELO" identity (which may or may not have been checked separately before). SPF clients MUST check the "MAIL FROM" identity. SPF clients check the "MAIL FROM" identity by applying the check_host() function to the "MAIL FROM" identity as the <SENDER>. 2.3. Publishing Authorization An SPF-compliant domain MUST publish a valid SPF record as described in Section 3. This record authorizes the use of the domain name in the "HELO" and "MAIL FROM" identities by the MTAs it specifies. If domain owners choose to publish SPF records, it is RECOMMENDED that they end in "-all", or redirect to other records that do, so that a definitive determination of authorization can be made. Domain holders may publish SPF records that explicitly authorize no hosts if mail should never originate using that domain. When changing SPF records, care must be taken to ensure that there is a transition period so that the old policy remains valid until all legitimate E-Mail has been checked. 2.4. Checking Authorization A mail receiver can perform a set of SPF checks for each mail message it receives. An SPF check tests the authorization of a client host to emit mail with a given identity. Typically, such checks are done by a receiving MTA, but can be performed elsewhere in the mail processing chain so long as the required information is available and reliable. At least the "MAIL FROM" identity MUST be checked, but it is RECOMMENDED that the "HELO" identity also be checked beforehand. Without explicit approval of the domain owner, checking other identities against SPF version 1 records is NOT RECOMMENDED because there are cases that are known to give incorrect results. For example, almost all mailing lists rewrite the "MAIL FROM" identity (see Section 9.2), but some do not change any other identities in the message. The scenario described in Section 9.3, sub-section 1.2, is another example. Documents that define other identities should define the method for explicit approval. It is possible that mail receivers will use the SPF check as part of a larger set of tests on incoming mail. The results of other tests may influence whether or not a particular SPF check is performed. For example, finding the sending host's IP address on a local white Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 6] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 list may cause all other tests to be skipped and all mail from that host to be accepted. When a mail receiver decides to perform an SPF check, it MUST use a correctly-implemented check_host() function (Section 4) evaluated with the correct parameters. Although the test as a whole is optional, once it has been decided to perform a test it must be performed as specified so that the correct semantics are preserved between publisher and receiver. To make the test, the mail receiver MUST evaluate the check_host() function with the arguments set as follows: <IP> - the IP address of the SMTP client that is emitting the mail, either IPv4 or IPv6. <DOMAIN> - the domain portion of the "MAIL FROM" or "HELO" identity. <SENDER> - the "MAIL FROM" or "HELO" identity. Note that the <DOMAIN> argument may not be a well-formed domain name. For example, if the reverse-path was null, then the EHLO/HELO domain is used, with its associated problems (see Section 2.1). In these cases, check_host() is defined in Section 4.3 to return a "None" result. Although invalid, malformed, or non-existent domains cause SPF checks to return "None" because no SPF record can be found, it has long been the policy of many MTAs to reject E-Mail from such domains, especially in the case of invalid "MAIL FROM". In order to prevent the circumvention of SPF records, rejecting E-Mail from invalid domains should be considered. Implementations must take care to correctly extract the <DOMAIN> from the data given with the SMTP MAIL FROM command as many MTAs will still accept such things as source routes (see [RFC2821], Appendix C), the %-hack (see [RFC1123]), and bang paths (see [RFC1983]). These archaic features have been maliciously used to bypass security systems. 2.5. Interpreting the Result This section describes how software that performs the authorization should interpret the results of the check_host() function. The authorization check SHOULD be performed during the processing of the SMTP transaction that sends the mail. This allows errors to be returned directly to the sending MTA by way of SMTP replies. Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 7] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 Performing the authorization after the SMTP transaction has finished may cause problems, such as the following: (1) It may be difficult to accurately extract the required information from potentially deceptive headers; (2) legitimate E-Mail may fail because the sender's policy may have since changed. Generating non-delivery notifications to forged identities that have failed the authorization check is generally abusive and against the explicit wishes of the identity owner. 2.5.1. None A result of "None" means that no records were published by the domain or that no checkable sender domain could be determined from the given identity. The checking software cannot ascertain whether or not the client host is authorized. 2.5.2. Neutral The domain owner has explicitly stated that he cannot or does not want to assert whether or not the IP address is authorized. A "Neutral" result MUST be treated exactly like the "None" result; the distinction exists only for informational purposes. Treating "Neutral" more harshly than "None" would discourage domain owners from testing the use of SPF records (see Section 9.1). 2.5.3. Pass A "Pass" result means that the client is authorized to inject mail with the given identity. The domain can now, in the sense of reputation, be considered responsible for sending the message. Further policy checks can now proceed with confidence in the legitimate use of the identity. 2.5.4. Fail A "Fail" result is an explicit statement that the client is not authorized to use the domain in the given identity. The checking software can choose to mark the mail based on this or to reject the mail outright. If the checking software chooses to reject the mail during the SMTP transaction, then it SHOULD use an SMTP reply code of 550 (see [RFC2821]) and, if supported, the 5.7.1 Delivery Status Notification (DSN) code (see [RFC3464]), in addition to an appropriate reply text. The check_host() function may return either a default explanation string or one from the domain that published the SPF records (see Section 6.2). If the information does not originate with the Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 8] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 checking software, it should be made clear that the text is provided by the sender's domain. For example: 550-5.7.1 SPF MAIL FROM check failed: 550-5.7.1 The domain example.com explains: 550 5.7.1 Please see http://www.example.com/mailpolicy.html 2.5.5. SoftFail A "SoftFail" result should be treated as somewhere between a "Fail" and a "Neutral". The domain believes the host is not authorized but is not willing to make that strong of a statement. Receiving software SHOULD NOT reject the message based solely on this result, but MAY subject the message to closer scrutiny than normal. The domain owner wants to discourage the use of this host and thus desires limited feedback when a "SoftFail" result occurs. For example, the recipient's Mail User Agent (MUA) could highlight the "SoftFail" status, or the receiving MTA could give the sender a message using a technique called "greylisting" whereby the MTA can issue an SMTP reply code of 451 (4.3.0 DSN code) with a note the first time the message is received, but accept it the second time. 2.5.6. TempError A "TempError" result means that the SPF client encountered a transient error while performing the check. Checking software can choose to accept or temporarily reject the message. If the message is rejected during the SMTP transaction for this reason, the software SHOULD use an SMTP reply code of 451 and, if supported, the 4.4.3 DSN code. 2.5.7. PermError A "PermError" result means that the domain's published records could not be correctly interpreted. This signals an error condition that requires manual intervention to be resolved, as opposed to the TempError result. Be aware that if the domain owner uses macros (Section 8), it is possible that this result is due to the checked identities having an unexpected format. 3. SPF Records An SPF record is a DNS Resource Record (RR) that declares which hosts are, and are not, authorized to use a domain name for the "HELO" and "MAIL FROM" identities. Loosely, the record partitions all hosts into permitted and not-permitted sets (though some hosts might fall into neither category). Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 9] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 The SPF record is a single string of text. An example record is the following: v=spf1 +mx a:colo.example.com/28 -all This record has a version of "spf1" and three directives: "+mx", "a:colo.example.com/28" (the + is implied), and "-all". 3.1. Publishing Domain owners wishing to be SPF compliant must publish SPF records for the hosts that are used in the "MAIL FROM" and "HELO" identities. The SPF records are placed in the DNS tree at the host name it pertains to, not a subdomain under it, such as is done with SRV records. This is the same whether the TXT or SPF RR type (see Section 3.1.1) is used. The example above in Section 3 might be published via these lines in a domain zone file: example.com. TXT "v=spf1 +mx a:colo.example.com/28 -all" smtp-out.example.com. TXT "v=spf1 a -all" When publishing via TXT records, beware of other TXT records published there for other purposes. They may cause problems with size limits (see Section 3.1.4). 3.1.1. DNS Resource Record Types This document defines a new DNS RR of type SPF, code 99. The format of this type is identical to the TXT RR [RFC1035]. For either type, the character content of the record is encoded as [US-ASCII]. It is recognized that the current practice (using a TXT record) is not optimal, but it is necessary because there are a number of DNS server and resolver implementations in common use that cannot handle the new RR type. The two-record-type scheme provides a forward path to the better solution of using an RR type reserved for this purpose. An SPF-compliant domain name SHOULD have SPF records of both RR types. A compliant domain name MUST have a record of at least one type. If a domain has records of both types, they MUST have identical content. For example, instead of publishing just one record as in Section 3.1 above, it is better to publish: example.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 +mx a:colo.example.com/28 -all" example.com. IN SPF "v=spf1 +mx a:colo.example.com/28 -all" Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 10] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 Example RRs in this document are shown with the TXT record type; however, they could be published with the SPF type or with both types. 3.1.2. Multiple DNS Records A domain name MUST NOT have multiple records that would cause an authorization check to select more than one record. See Section 4.5 for the selection rules. 3.1.3. Multiple Strings in a Single DNS record As defined in [RFC1035] sections 3.3.14 and 3.3, a single text DNS record (either TXT or SPF RR types) can be composed of more than one string. If a published record contains multiple strings, then the record MUST be treated as if those strings are concatenated together without adding spaces. For example: IN TXT "v=spf1 .... first" "second string..." MUST be treated as equivalent to IN TXT "v=spf1 .... firstsecond string..." SPF or TXT records containing multiple strings are useful in constructing records that would exceed the 255-byte maximum length of a string within a single TXT or SPF RR record. 3.1.4. Record Size The published SPF record for a given domain name SHOULD remain small enough that the results of a query for it will fit within 512 octets. This will keep even older DNS implementations from falling over to TCP. Since the answer size is dependent on many things outside the scope of this document, it is only possible to give this guideline: If the combined length of the DNS name and the text of all the records of a given type (TXT or SPF) is under 450 characters, then DNS answers should fit in UDP packets. Note that when computing the sizes for queries of the TXT format, one must take into account any other TXT records published at the domain name. Records that are too long to fit in a single UDP packet MAY be silently ignored by SPF clients. 3.1.5. Wildcard Records Use of wildcard records for publishing is not recommended. Care must be taken if wildcard records are used. If a domain publishes wildcard MX records, it may want to publish wildcard declarations, Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 11] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 subject to the same requirements and problems. In particular, the declaration must be repeated for any host that has any RR records at all, and for subdomains thereof. For example, the example given in [RFC1034], Section 4.3.3, could be extended with the following: X.COM. MX 10 A.X.COM X.COM. TXT "v=spf1 a:A.X.COM -all" *.X.COM. MX 10 A.X.COM *.X.COM. TXT "v=spf1 a:A.X.COM -all" A.X.COM. A 1.2.3.4 A.X.COM. MX 10 A.X.COM A.X.COM. TXT "v=spf1 a:A.X.COM -all" *.A.X.COM. MX 10 A.X.COM *.A.X.COM. TXT "v=spf1 a:A.X.COM -all" Notice that SPF records must be repeated twice for every name within the domain: once for the name, and once with a wildcard to cover the tree under the name. Use of wildcards is discouraged in general as they cause every name under the domain to exist and queries against arbitrary names will never return RCODE 3 (Name Error). 4. The check_host() Function The check_host() function fetches SPF records, parses them, and interprets them to determine whether a particular host is or is not permitted to send mail with a given identity. Mail receivers that perform this check MUST correctly evaluate the check_host() function as described here. Implementations MAY use a different algorithm than the canonical algorithm defined here, so long as the results are the same in all cases. 4.1. Arguments The check_host() function takes these arguments: <IP> - the IP address of the SMTP client that is emitting the mail, either IPv4 or IPv6. <DOMAIN> - the domain that provides the sought-after authorization information; initially, the domain portion of the "MAIL FROM" or "HELO" identity. Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 12] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 <SENDER> - the "MAIL FROM" or "HELO" identity. The domain portion of <SENDER> will usually be the same as the <DOMAIN> argument when check_host() is initially evaluated. However, this will generally not be true for recursive evaluations (see Section 5.2 below). Actual implementations of the check_host() function may need additional arguments. 4.2. Results The function check_host() can return one of several results described in Section 2.5. Based on the result, the action to be taken is determined by the local policies of the receiver. 4.3. Initial Processing If the <DOMAIN> is malformed (label longer than 63 characters, zero- length label not at the end, etc.) or is not a fully qualified domain name, or if the DNS lookup returns "domain does not exist" (RCODE 3), check_host() immediately returns the result "None". If the <SENDER> has no localpart, substitute the string "postmaster" for the localpart. 4.4. Record Lookup In accordance with how the records are published (see Section 3.1 above), a DNS query needs to be made for the <DOMAIN> name, querying for either RR type TXT, SPF, or both. If both SPF and TXT RRs are looked up, the queries MAY be done in parallel. If all DNS lookups that are made return a server failure (RCODE 2), or other error (RCODE other than 0 or 3), or time out, then check_host() exits immediately with the result "TempError". 4.5. Selecting Records Records begin with a version section: record = version terms *SP version = "v=spf1" Starting with the set of records that were returned by the lookup, record selection proceeds in two steps: Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 13] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 1. Records that do not begin with a version section of exactly "v=spf1" are discarded. Note that the version section is terminated either by an SP character or the end of the record. A record with a version section of "v=spf10" does not match and must be discarded. 2. If any records of type SPF are in the set, then all records of type TXT are discarded. After the above steps, there should be exactly one record remaining and evaluation can proceed. If there are two or more records remaining, then check_host() exits immediately with the result of "PermError". If no matching records are returned, an SPF client MUST assume that the domain makes no SPF declarations. SPF processing MUST stop and return "None". 4.6. Record Evaluation After one SPF record has been selected, the check_host() function parses and interprets it to find a result for the current test. If there are any syntax errors, check_host() returns immediately with the result "PermError". Implementations MAY choose to parse the entire record first and return "PermError" if the record is not syntactically well formed. However, in all cases, any syntax errors anywhere in the record MUST be detected. 4.6.1. Term Evaluation There are two types of terms: mechanisms and modifiers. A record contains an ordered list of these as specified in the following Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF). terms = *( 1*SP ( directive / modifier ) ) directive = [ qualifier ] mechanism qualifier = "+" / "-" / "?" / "~" mechanism = ( all / include / A / MX / PTR / IP4 / IP6 / exists ) modifier = redirect / explanation / unknown-modifier unknown-modifier = name "=" macro-string name = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "_" / "." ) Most mechanisms allow a ":" or "/" character after the name. Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 14] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 Modifiers always contain an equals ('=') character immediately after the name, and before any ":" or "/" characters that may be part of the macro-string. Terms that do not contain any of "=", ":", or "/" are mechanisms, as defined in Section 5. As per the definition of the ABNF notation in [RFC4234], mechanism and modifier names are case-insensitive. 4.6.2. Mechanisms Each mechanism is considered in turn from left to right. If there are no more mechanisms, the result is specified in Section 4.7. When a mechanism is evaluated, one of three things can happen: it can match, not match, or throw an exception. If it matches, processing ends and the qualifier value is returned as the result of that record. If it does not match, processing continues with the next mechanism. If it throws an exception, mechanism processing ends and the exception value is returned. The possible qualifiers, and the results they return are as follows: "+" Pass "-" Fail "~" SoftFail "?" Neutral The qualifier is optional and defaults to "+". When a mechanism matches and the qualifier is "-", then a "Fail" result is returned and the explanation string is computed as described in Section 6.2. The specific mechanisms are described in Section 5. 4.6.3. Modifiers Modifiers are not mechanisms: they do not return match or not-match. Instead they provide additional information. Although modifiers do not directly affect the evaluation of the record, the "redirect" modifier has an effect after all the mechanisms have been evaluated. Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 15] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 4.7. Default Result If none of the mechanisms match and there is no "redirect" modifier, then the check_host() returns a result of "Neutral", just as if "?all" were specified as the last directive. If there is a "redirect" modifier, check_host() proceeds as defined in Section 6.1. Note that records SHOULD always use either a "redirect" modifier or an "all" mechanism to explicitly terminate processing. For example: v=spf1 +mx -all or v=spf1 +mx redirect=_spf.example.com 4.8. Domain Specification Several of these mechanisms and modifiers have a <DOMAIN-SPEC> section. The <DOMAIN-SPEC> string is macro expanded (see Section 8). The resulting string is the common presentation form of a fully- qualified DNS name: a series of labels separated by periods. This domain is called the <TARGET-NAME> in the rest of this document. Note: The result of the macro expansion is not subject to any further escaping. Hence, this facility cannot produce all characters that are legal in a DNS label (e.g., the control characters). However, this facility is powerful enough to express legal host names and common utility labels (such as "_spf") that are used in DNS. For several mechanisms, the <DOMAIN-SPEC> is optional. If it is not provided, the <DOMAIN> is used as the <TARGET-NAME>. 5. Mechanism Definitions This section defines two types of mechanisms. Basic mechanisms contribute to the language framework. They do not specify a particular type of authorization scheme. all include Designated sender mechanisms are used to designate a set of <IP> addresses as being permitted or not permitted to use the <DOMAIN> for sending mail. Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 16] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 a mx ptr ip4 ip6 exists The following conventions apply to all mechanisms that perform a comparison between <IP> and an IP address at any point: If no CIDR-length is given in the directive, then <IP> and the IP address are compared for equality. (Here, CIDR is Classless Inter- Domain Routing.) If a CIDR-length is specified, then only the specified number of high-order bits of <IP> and the IP address are compared for equality. When any mechanism fetches host addresses to compare with <IP>, when <IP> is an IPv4 address, A records are fetched, when <IP> is an IPv6 address, AAAA records are fetched. Even if the SMTP connection is via IPv6, an IPv4-mapped IPv6 IP address (see [RFC3513], Section 2.5.5) MUST still be considered an IPv4 address. Several mechanisms rely on information fetched from DNS. For these DNS queries, except where noted, if the DNS server returns an error (RCODE other than 0 or 3) or the query times out, the mechanism throws the exception "TempError". If the server returns "domain does not exist" (RCODE 3), then evaluation of the mechanism continues as if the server returned no error (RCODE 0) and zero answer records. 5.1. "all" all = "all" The "all" mechanism is a test that always matches. It is used as the rightmost mechanism in a record to provide an explicit default. For example: v=spf1 a mx -all Mechanisms after "all" will never be tested. Any "redirect" modifier (Section 6.1) has no effect when there is an "all" mechanism. Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 17] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 5.2. "include" include = "include" ":" domain-spec The "include" mechanism triggers a recursive evaluation of check_host(). The domain-spec is expanded as per Section 8. Then check_host() is evaluated with the resulting string as the <DOMAIN>. The <IP> and <SENDER> arguments remain the same as in the current evaluation of check_host(). In hindsight, the name "include" was poorly chosen. Only the evaluated result of the referenced SPF record is used, rather than acting as if the referenced SPF record was literally included in the first. For example, evaluating a "-all" directive in the referenced record does not terminate the overall processing and does not necessarily result in an overall "Fail". (Better names for this mechanism would have been "if-pass", "on-pass", etc.) The "include" mechanism makes it possible for one domain to designate multiple administratively-independent domains. For example, a vanity domain "example.net" might send mail using the servers of administratively-independent domains example.com and example.org. Example.net could say IN TXT "v=spf1 include:example.com include:example.org -all" This would direct check_host() to, in effect, check the records of example.com and example.org for a "Pass" result. Only if the host were not permitted for either of those domains would the result be "Fail". Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 18] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 Whether this mechanism matches, does not match, or throws an exception depends on the result of the recursive evaluation of check_host(): +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | A recursive check_host() result | Causes the "include" mechanism | | of: | to: | +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Pass | match | | | | | Fail | not match | | | | | SoftFail | not match | | | | | Neutral | not match | | | | | TempError | throw TempError | | | | | PermError | throw PermError | | | | | None | throw PermError | +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+ The "include" mechanism is intended for crossing administrative boundaries. Although it is possible to use includes to consolidate multiple domains that share the same set of designated hosts, domains are encouraged to use redirects where possible, and to minimize the number of includes within a single administrative domain. For example, if example.com and example.org were managed by the same entity, and if the permitted set of hosts for both domains was "mx:example.com", it would be possible for example.org to specify "include:example.com", but it would be preferable to specify "redirect=example.com" or even "mx:example.com". 5.3. "a" This mechanism matches if <IP> is one of the <TARGET-NAME>'s IP addresses. A = "a" [ ":" domain-spec ] [ dual-cidr-length ] An address lookup is done on the <TARGET-NAME>. The <IP> is compared to the returned address(es). If any address matches, the mechanism matches. Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 19] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 5.4. "mx" This mechanism matches if <IP> is one of the MX hosts for a domain name. MX = "mx" [ ":" domain-spec ] [ dual-cidr-length ] check_host() first performs an MX lookup on the <TARGET-NAME>. Then it performs an address lookup on each MX name returned. The <IP> is compared to each returned IP address. To prevent Denial of Service (DoS) attacks, more than 10 MX names MUST NOT be looked up during the evaluation of an "mx" mechanism (see Section 10). If any address matches, the mechanism matches. Note regarding implicit MXs: If the <TARGET-NAME> has no MX records, check_host() MUST NOT pretend the target is its single MX, and MUST NOT default to an A lookup on the <TARGET-NAME> directly. This behavior breaks with the legacy "implicit MX" rule. See [RFC2821], Section 5. If such behavior is desired, the publisher should specify an "a" directive. 5.5. "ptr" This mechanism tests whether the DNS reverse-mapping for <IP> exists and correctly points to a domain name within a particular domain. PTR = "ptr" [ ":" domain-spec ] First, the <IP>'s name is looked up using this procedure: perform a DNS reverse-mapping for <IP>, looking up the corresponding PTR record in "in-addr.arpa." if the address is an IPv4 one and in "ip6.arpa." if it is an IPv6 address. For each record returned, validate the domain name by looking up its IP address. To prevent DoS attacks, more than 10 PTR names MUST NOT be looked up during the evaluation of a "ptr" mechanism (see Section 10). If <IP> is among the returned IP addresses, then that domain name is validated. In pseudocode: sending-domain_names := ptr_lookup(sending-host_IP); if more than 10 sending-domain_names are found, use at most 10. for each name in (sending-domain_names) { IP_addresses := a_lookup(name); if the sending-domain_IP is one of the IP_addresses { validated-sending-domain_names += name; } } Check all validated domain names to see if they end in the <TARGET-NAME> domain. If any do, this mechanism matches. If no validated domain name can be found, or if none of the validated Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 20] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 domain names end in the <TARGET-NAME>, this mechanism fails to match. If a DNS error occurs while doing the PTR RR lookup, then this mechanism fails to match. If a DNS error occurs while doing an A RR lookup, then that domain name is skipped and the search continues. Pseudocode: for each name in (validated-sending-domain_names) { if name ends in <DOMAIN-SPEC>, return match. if name is <DOMAIN-SPEC>, return match. } return no-match. This mechanism matches if the <TARGET-NAME> is either an ancestor of a validated domain name or if the <TARGET-NAME> and a validated domain name are the same. For example: "mail.example.com" is within the domain "example.com", but "mail.bad-example.com" is not. Note: Use of this mechanism is discouraged because it is slow, it is not as reliable as other mechanisms in cases of DNS errors, and it places a large burden on the arpa name servers. If used, proper PTR records must be in place for the domain's hosts and the "ptr" mechanism should be one of the last mechanisms checked. 5.6. "ip4" and "ip6" These mechanisms test whether <IP> is contained within a given IP network. IP4 = "ip4" ":" ip4-network [ ip4-cidr-length ] IP6 = "ip6" ":" ip6-network [ ip6-cidr-length ] ip4-cidr-length = "/" 1*DIGIT ip6-cidr-length = "/" 1*DIGIT dual-cidr-length = [ ip4-cidr-length ] [ "/" ip6-cidr-length ] ip4-network = qnum "." qnum "." qnum "." qnum qnum = DIGIT ; 0-9 / %x31-39 DIGIT ; 10-99 / "1" 2DIGIT ; 100-199 / "2" %x30-34 DIGIT ; 200-249 / "25" %x30-35 ; 250-255 ; as per conventional dotted quad notation. e.g., 192.0.2.0 ip6-network = <AS 2.2 section 3513], [RFC per> ; e.g., 2001:DB8::CD30 The <IP> is compared to the given network. If CIDR-length high-order bits match, the mechanism matches. Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 21] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 If ip4-cidr-length is omitted, it is taken to be "/32". If ip6-cidr-length is omitted, it is taken to be "/128". It is not permitted to omit parts of the IP address instead of using CIDR notations. That is, use 192.0.2.0/24 instead of 192.0.2. 5.7. "exists" This mechanism is used to construct an arbitrary domain name that is used for a DNS A record query. It allows for complicated schemes involving arbitrary parts of the mail envelope to determine what is permitted. exists = "exists" ":" domain-spec The domain-spec is expanded as per Section 8. The resulting domain name is used for a DNS A RR lookup. If any A record is returned, this mechanism matches. The lookup type is A even when the connection type is IPv6. Domains can use this mechanism to specify arbitrarily complex queries. For example, suppose example.com publishes the record: v=spf1 exists:%{ir}.%{l1r+-}._spf.%{d} -all The <TARGET-NAME> might expand to "1.2.0.192.someuser._spf.example.com". This makes fine-grained decisions possible at the level of the user and client IP address. This mechanism enables queries that mimic the style of tests that existing anti-spam DNS blacklists (DNSBL) use. 6. Modifier Definitions Modifiers are name/value pairs that provide additional information. Modifiers always have an "=" separating the name and the value. The modifiers defined in this document ("redirect" and "exp") MAY appear anywhere in the record, but SHOULD appear at the end, after all mechanisms. Ordering of these two modifiers does not matter. These two modifiers MUST NOT appear in a record more than once each. If they do, then check_host() exits with a result of "PermError". Unrecognized modifiers MUST be ignored no matter where in a record, or how often. This allows implementations of this document to gracefully handle records with modifiers that are defined in other specifications. Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 22] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 6.1. redirect: Redirected Query If all mechanisms fail to match, and a "redirect" modifier is present, then processing proceeds as follows: redirect = "redirect" "=" domain-spec The domain-spec portion of the redirect section is expanded as per the macro rules in Section 8. Then check_host() is evaluated with the resulting string as the <DOMAIN>. The <IP> and <SENDER> arguments remain the same as current evaluation of check_host(). The result of this new evaluation of check_host() is then considered the result of the current evaluation with the exception that if no SPF record is found, or if the target-name is malformed, the result is a "PermError" rather than "None". Note that the newly-queried domain may itself specify redirect processing. This facility is intended for use by organizations that wish to apply the same record to multiple domains. For example: la.example.com. TXT "v=spf1 redirect=_spf.example.com" ny.example.com. TXT "v=spf1 redirect=_spf.example.com" sf.example.com. TXT "v=spf1 redirect=_spf.example.com" _spf.example.com. TXT "v=spf1 mx:example.com -all" In this example, mail from any of the three domains is described by the same record. This can be an administrative advantage. Note: In general, the domain "A" cannot reliably use a redirect to another domain "B" not under the same administrative control. Since the <SENDER> stays the same, there is no guarantee that the record at domain "B" will correctly work for mailboxes in domain "A", especially if domain "B" uses mechanisms involving localparts. An "include" directive may be more appropriate. For clarity, it is RECOMMENDED that any "redirect" modifier appear as the very last term in a record. 6.2. exp: Explanation explanation = "exp" "=" domain-spec If check_host() results in a "Fail" due to a mechanism match (such as "-all"), and the "exp" modifier is present, then the explanation string returned is computed as described below. If no "exp" modifier Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 23] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 is present, then either a default explanation string or an empty explanation string may be returned. The <DOMAIN-SPEC> is macro expanded (see Section 8) and becomes the <TARGET-NAME>. The DNS TXT record for the <TARGET-NAME> is fetched. If <DOMAIN-SPEC> is empty, or there are any DNS processing errors (any RCODE other than 0), or if no records are returned, or if more than one record is returned, or if there are syntax errors in the explanation string, then proceed as if no exp modifier was given. The fetched TXT record's strings are concatenated with no spaces, and then treated as an <EXPLAIN-STRING>, which is macro-expanded. This final result is the explanation string. Implementations MAY limit the length of the resulting explanation string to allow for other protocol constraints and/or reasonable processing limits. Since the explanation string is intended for an SMTP response and [RFC2821] Section 2.4 says that responses are in [US-ASCII], the explanation string is also limited to US-ASCII. Software evaluating check_host() can use this string to communicate information from the publishing domain in the form of a short message or URL. Software SHOULD make it clear that the explanation string comes from a third party. For example, it can prepend the macro string "%{o} explains: " to the explanation, such as shown in Section 2.5.4. Suppose example.com has this record: v=spf1 mx -all exp=explain._spf.%{d} Here are some examples of possible explanation TXT records at explain._spf.example.com: "Mail from example.com should only be sent by its own servers." -- a simple, constant message "%{i} is not one of %{d}'s designated mail servers." -- a message with a little more information, including the IP address that failed the check "See http://%{d}/why.html?s=%{S}&amp;i=%{I}" -- a complicated example that constructs a URL with the arguments to check_host() so that a web page can be generated with detailed, custom instructions Note: During recursion into an "include" mechanism, an exp= modifier from the <TARGET-NAME> MUST NOT be used. In contrast, when executing Wong &amp; Schlitt Experimental [Page 24] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 a "redirect" modifier, an exp= modifier from the original domain MUST NOT be used. 7. The Received-SPF Header Field It is RECOMMENDED that SMTP receivers record the result of SPF processing in the message header. If an SMTP receiver chooses to do so, it SHOULD use the "Received-SPF" header field defined here for each identity that was checked. This information is intended for the recipient. (Information intended for the sender is described in Section 6.2, Explanation.) The Received-SPF header field is a trace field (see [RFC2822] Section 3.6.7) and SHOULD be prepended to the existing header, above the Received: field that is generated by the SMTP receiver. It MUST appear above all other Received-SPF fields in the message. The header field has the following format: header-field = "Received-SPF:" [CFWS] result FWS [comment FWS] [ key-value-list ] CRLF result = "Pass" / "Fail" / "SoftFail" / "Neutral" / "None" / "TempError" / "PermError" key-value-list = key-value-pair *( ";" [CFWS] key-value-pair ) [";"] key-value-pair = key [CFWS] "=" ( dot-atom / quoted-string ) key = "client-ip" / "envelope-from" / "helo" / "problem" / "receiver" / "identity" / mechanism / "x-" name / name identity = "mailfrom" ; for the "MAIL FROM" identity / "helo" ; for the "HELO" identity / name ; other identities dot-atom = <UNQUOTED per [RFC2822] as word> quoted-string = <QUOTED per [RFC2822] as string> comment = <COMMENT per [RFC2822] as string> CFWS = <comment or folding white space as per [RFC2822]> FWS = <folding white space as per [RFC2822]> CRLF = <standard end-of-line token as per [RFC2822]> The header field SHOULD include a "(...)" style <comment> after the result, conveying supporting information for the result, such as <ip>, <sender>, and <domain>. Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 25] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 The following key-value pairs are designed for later machine parsing. SPF clients SHOULD give enough information so that the SPF results can be verified. That is, at least "client-ip", "helo", and, if the "MAIL FROM" identity was checked, "envelope-from". client-ip the IP address of the SMTP client envelope-from the envelope sender mailbox helo the host name given in the HELO or EHLO command mechanism the mechanism that matched (if no mechanisms matched, substitute the word "default") problem if an error was returned, details about the error receiver the host name of the SPF client identity the identity that was checked; see the <identity> ABNF rule Other keys may be defined by SPF clients. Until a new key name becomes widely accepted, new key names should start with "x-". SPF clients MUST make sure that the Received-SPF header field does not contain invalid characters, is not excessively long, and does not contain malicious data that has been provided by the sender. Examples of various header styles that could be generated are the following: Received-SPF: Pass (mybox.example.org: domain of myname@example.com designates 192.0.2.1 as permitted sender) receiver=mybox.example.org; client-ip=192.0.2.1; envelope-from=<myname@example.com>; helo=foo.example.com; Received-SPF: Fail (mybox.example.org: domain of myname@example.com does not designate 192.0.2.1 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=192.0.2.1; envelope-from=<myname@example.com>; Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 26] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 8. Macros 8.1. Macro Definitions Many mechanisms and modifiers perform macro expansion on part of the term. domain-spec = macro-string domain-end domain-end = ( "." toplabel [ "." ] ) / macro-expand toplabel = ( *alphanum ALPHA *alphanum ) / ( 1*alphanum "-" *( alphanum / "-" ) alphanum ) ; LDH rule plus additional TLD restrictions ; (see [RFC3696], Section 2) alphanum = ALPHA / DIGIT explain-string = *( macro-string / SP ) macro-string = *( macro-expand / macro-literal ) macro-expand = ( "%{" macro-letter transformers *delimiter "}" ) / "%%" / "%_" / "%-" macro-literal = %x21-24 / %x26-7E ; visible characters except "%" macro-letter = "s" / "l" / "o" / "d" / "i" / "p" / "h" / "c" / "r" / "t" transformers = *DIGIT [ "r" ] delimiter = "." / "-" / "+" / "," / "/" / "_" / "=" A literal "%" is expressed by "%%". "%_" expands to a single " " space. "%-" expands to a URL-encoded space, viz., "%20". The following macro letters are expanded in term arguments: s = <sender> l = local-part of <sender> o = domain of <sender> d = <domain> i = <ip> p = the validated domain name of <ip> v = the string "in-addr" if <ip> is ipv4, or "ip6" if <ip> is ipv6 h = HELO/EHLO domain Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 27] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 The following macro letters are allowed only in "exp" text: c = SMTP client IP (easily readable format) r = domain name of host performing the check t = current timestamp A '%' character not followed by a '{', '%', '-', or '_' character is a syntax error. So -exists:%(ir).sbl.spamhaus.example.org is incorrect and will cause check_host() to return a "PermError". Instead, say -exists:%{ir}.sbl.spamhaus.example.org Optional transformers are the following: *DIGIT = zero or more digits 'r' = reverse value, splitting on dots by default If transformers or delimiters are provided, the replacement value for a macro letter is split into parts. After performing any reversal operation and/or removal of left-hand parts, the parts are rejoined using "." and not the original splitting characters. By default, strings are split on "." (dots). Note that no special treatment is given to leading, trailing, or consecutive delimiters, and so the list of parts may contain empty strings. Older implementations of SPF prohibit trailing dots in domain names, so trailing dots should not be published by domain owners, although they must be accepted by implementations conforming to this document. Macros may specify delimiter characters that are used instead of ".". The 'r' transformer indicates a reversal operation: if the client IP address were 192.0.2.1, the macro %{i} would expand to "192.0.2.1" and the macro %{ir} would expand to "1.2.0.192". The DIGIT transformer indicates the number of right-hand parts to use, after optional reversal. If a DIGIT is specified, the value MUST be nonzero. If no DIGITs are specified, or if the value specifies more parts than are available, all the available parts are used. If the DIGIT was 5, and only 3 parts were available, the macro interpreter would pretend the DIGIT was 3. Implementations MUST support at least a value of 128, as that is the maximum number of labels in a domain name. Wong & Schlitt Experimental [Page 28] RFC 4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF) April 2006 The "s" macro expands to the <

Related Topics

Pending draft

Confirm move posts

Insufficient permissions

Select a different topic

Edit history