Hi, On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:28 AM, John Hardin <jhar...@impsec.org> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Dec 2015, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >>> > My response was based on how you worded your question, which has been >>> > removed from the thread now: >>> > > > > > Please help me understand why SPF_FAIL would not be triggered >>> > > > > > > > > > when an incoming email using my domain is received by a >>> > > > > > > > > > server > > >>> > > > > > > > that is not in my SPF record. >> >> The SPF fail SHOULD be triggered in that case. > > Matus, I think you misread the question. Again: whether or not the > *receiving* MTA is mentioned in the SPF record is immaterial. > > I don't know whether Alex (at the time) misunderstood SPF and asked a > question based on that misunderstanding, which I tried to clarify, or he > simply mistyped "by" when he should have typed "from".
Yes, I have no idea why I would have written "by". I meant "from". Too many hours of SPF at once, I suppose. Is it possible to test spamassassin SPF rules after a message is received? I've been unsuccessful: Dec 10 21:15:02.318 [2402] dbg: spf: relayed through one or more trusted relays, cannot use header-based Envelope-From, skipping I don't understand why a message from tripadvisor.com would have SPF_FAIL, and as part of trying to understand how SPF works, I'd like to figure out what's happening. Would someone be able to take a look at this message and figure out why mail from tripadvisor.com fails SPF? http://pastebin.com/36hzGcTs Thanks, Alex
