strong authentication an important building block (Score 5, Informative)

SPF is easy for sending domains to implement, which is one of the reasons it's becoming popular. During the last six months we've seen a major increase in the number of domains that use SPF (including many of the big ones) as well as an increase in the percentage of messages we receive from an SPF-protected domain.

As far as its effectiveness goes, in one analysis where we sampled a set of messages in which the purported sender's domain was that of a major ISP, we found that if the SPF authentication check returned 'softfail', the probability of the message being junk was near 100%. When we checked our MTAs "Received" headers, they indicated that the messages were being sent from IP addresses in different countries and domains (as one would expect). Of those messages that passed, only about 30% of the messages were junk. Clearly there is 'signal' in the SPF score.

Interestingly, of those messages that passed and yet were junk (those that composed the 30%), all appeared to be sent by a legitimately registered user at the ISP. This is the double-edged sword of authenticating your messages if you are an ISP: if your own user base is sending junk, other ISPs and recipients will be able to figure it out. And you might be perceived poorly.

Yet this is exactly what should happen; it's the point of authentication. There should be motivation for ISPs, either financial or brand-related (which ends up being financial), to establish and operate procedures that screen members or deter them from sending unwanted messages. Reputation (or concern of damage to it) is a great motivation.

The real promise in sender-authentication though is DKIM. While SPF is easier to implement for senders than DKIM, SPF is rather fragile; it doesn't survive forwarding without re-writing the envelope-from. Too few systems are set up to do this (list management software is the exception), and although changing the behavior of MTAs is just software, doing so will effect the efficiency of status (bounced mail) reporting. Messages that would be delivered 'point to point' in the past end up being 'source routed' with many unnecessary hops, increasing the odds of failure. DKIM is a little more involved to set up, but doesn't have these fragility issues (setting up checks when receiving is about the same level of difficulty for SPF and DKIM).

At Boxbe, we check both DKIM and SPF. The reason is that strong sender identity gives a pre-approval policy its teeth. We quarantine messages which fail EITHER form of authentication, but because DKIM is "forward-friendly" and SPF is not, if a message passes a DKIM check but fails an SPF check, we let the message pass (according to our member's preferences). Using both has merit as each type is a little different. Gmail has been signing/authenticating with both DKIM and SPF for quite some time. We also use both forms of authentication when we send out messages or forward messages to our members.

As other organizations adopt sender authentication (Comcast has announced it is implementing DKIM by year end) it will become a very effective tool.

--
Thede Loder
E: [e-mail]