Re: [Nmh-workers] Emails being tagged as spam -- NMH solution???

[Bob Carragher]

Thanks for the Received headers breakdown!  It confirms what I
guessed.  I don't have answers for your questions, though.  B-(

However, I'm happy to email you off-list a copy of the message
that was received at Stanford.  Just so I don't screw it up, if
it's in file foo.txt, how should I invoke base64(1) to generate
the file (which I'll attach using the Google web interface, to
*really* make sure I don't screw it up B-)?

Thanks!

                                Bob

On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:28:08 -0500 Ken Hornstein <address@hidden> sez:

> >> Okay, this header is actually defined in RFC 5451, see here:
> >> 
> >>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5451
> >
> >Is that still valid?  The top of the linked page indicates that
> >RFC 5451 is obsoleted by RFC 7001 (in turn updated by RFC 7410).
> 
> Ah, my bad ... I missed that.  The updated RFC has some new stuff, but
> I don't think it changes anything for the purposes of this discussion.
> 
> >This was sent using GMail's web interface, so it's about as
> >"legitimate" as it can be.  No failing SPF, DKIM, and DMARC tests
> >(as far as I can tell).
> 
> Hm, if you got this from the web interface ... I do not think then
> this is our problem.
> 
> Breaking the Received headers down (I've reversed them):
> 
> >> Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-71-202-61-143.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 
> >> <http://c-71-202-61-143.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>. [71.202.61.143])
> >>         by mx.google.com <http://mx.google.com> with ESMTPSA id 
> >> dx6sm10044832pab.14.2015.03.01.14.04.09
> >>         (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
> >>         Sun, 01 Mar 2015 14:04:09 -0800 (PST)
> 
> Okay, this looks like the submission from your local machine to the Google
> mail servers, which is correct.
> 
> >> X-Received: by 10.70.44.203 with SMTP id 
> >> g11mr42282044pdm.130.1425247450905;
> >>         Sun, 01 Mar 2015 14:04:10 -0800 (PST)
> 
> I guess this is put in there by Google?
> 
> >> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
> >>         d=gmail.com <http://gmail.com>; s=20120113;
> >>         h=message-id:from:originator:to:cc:reply-to:subject:in-reply-to
> >>         
> >> :references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:date;
> >>         ________
> >>         ________
> >>         ________
> 
> So that's the DKIM signature from Google.
> 
> >> Received: by pdbfl12 with SMTP id fl12so3394322pdb.5;
> >>         Sun, 01 Mar 2015 14:04:10 -0800 (PST)
> 
> Looks like something internal to Google.
> 
> >> Received: from mail-pd0-f179.google.com <http://mail-pd0-f179.google.com> 
> >> (mail-pd0-f179.google.com <http://mail-pd0-f179.google.com> 
> >> [209.85.192.179])
> >>  (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
> >>  (No client certificate requested)
> >>  by mx3.stanford.edu <http://mx3.stanford.edu> (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 
> >> 5585080B25;
> >>  Sun,  1 Mar 2015 14:04:11 -0800 (PST)
> 
> So that's Google sending it to Stanford (specifically, mx3 at Stanford).
> Normal.
> 
> >> Received: from mx3.stanford.edu <http://mx3.stanford.edu> 
> >> (mx3.stanford.edu <http://mx3.stanford.edu> [171.67.219.73])
> >>  by pps01.stanford.edu <http://pps01.stanford.edu> with ESMTP id 
> >> 1sva6d059f-1
> >>  (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
> >>  Sun, 01 Mar 2015 14:04:13 -0800
> 
> That's mx3 sending it to another host at Stanford.
> 
> >> Received: from pps.filterd (pps01.stanford.edu <http://pps01.stanford.edu> 
> >> [127.0.0.1])
> >>  by pps01.stanford.edu <http://pps01.stanford.edu> (8.14.5/8.14.5) with 
> >> SMTP id t21M03ir010851;
> >>  Sun, 1 Mar 2015 14:04:14 -0800
> 
> Looks like it's running it through some filtering host/program.
> 
> >> Received: from pps01.stanford.edu <http://pps01.stanford.edu> 
> >> (pps01.stanford.edu <http://pps01.stanford.edu> [171.67.214.163])
> >>  (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
> >>  (No client certificate requested)
> >>  by mx4.stanford.edu <http://mx4.stanford.edu> (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 
> >> 9A8DC80CD1;
> >>  Sun,  1 Mar 2015 14:04:12 -0800 (PST)
> 
> I'm unclear how mx4 got involved here, but whatever.
> 
> >> Received: from mx4.stanford.edu <http://mx4.stanford.edu> 
> >> (mx4.stanford.edu <http://mx4.stanford.edu> [171.67.219.87])
> >>  (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
> >>  (No client certificate requested)
> >>  by smtp-grey.stanford.edu <http://smtp-grey.stanford.edu> (Postfix) with 
> >> ESMTPS id AB17E20B81;
> >>  Sun,  1 Mar 2015 14:04:12 -0800 (PST)
> 
> mx4 sends it to smtp-grey.stanford.edu.
> 
> >> Received: from smtp-grey.stanford.edu <http://smtp-grey.stanford.edu> 
> >> (smtp-grey.stanford.edu <http://smtp-grey.stanford.edu>. [171.67.219.78])
> >>         by mx.google.com <http://mx.google.com> with ESMTPS id 
> >> bd5si10126741pbb.59.2015.03.01.14.04.12
> >>         (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
> >>         Sun, 01 Mar 2015 14:04:14 -0800 (PST)
> >> Received-SPF: softfail (google.com <http://google.com>: domain of 
> >> transitioning address@hidden <address@hidden> does not designate 
> >> 171.67.219.78 as permitted sender) client-ip=171.67.219.78;
> >> Authentication-Results: mx.google.com <http://mx.google.com>;
> >>        spf=softfail (google.com <http://google.com>: domain of 
> >> transitioning address@hidden <address@hidden> does not designate 
> >> 171.67.219.78 as permitted sender) address@hidden <address@hidden>;
> >>        dkim=fail address@hidden <http://gmail.com>;
> >>        dmarc=fail (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com 
> >> <http://gmail.com>
> 
> Oh-HO.  Okay, I think I see the problem.  smtp-grey.stanford.edu is doing
> the SPF check, but it's getting the email from mx4.stanford.edu!  Which is
> not an authorized sender for Google.  But I do not understand why DKIM and
> DMARC are failing.  I am wondering if maybe that's the core problem here.
> 
> So ... that would make sense.  If you're using sendmail, it is performing
> final delivery NOT through Google, and no DKIM signature is generated.
> Now, why is the DKIM signature failing?  Good question!  I don't have a
> lot of experience with DKIM, but you have piqued my curiousity; if you
> are willing to send me the original message to me off-list (please base64
> encode it so nothing is altered) I'll try to get some free time to chew
> on it.  It may be that we're doing something wrong that is causing this.
> 
> --Ken
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nmh-workers mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers