Re: smtpctl spf walk -6 ?
On Wed, 2021-05-12 at 15:45 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: > On 5/12/21 2:56 PM, Martijn van Duren wrote: > > Apparently it's a problem in glibc's inet_net_pton. It does not support > > AF_INET6. to.c has the same problem and works around this problem by > > handcrafting broken_inet_net_pton_ipv6(). > > > > Would it be possible to use inet_pton() ? > > > Regards > Harri > Nope, inet_pton doesn't support CIDR. broken_inet_net_pton_ipv6() uses inet_pton internally.
Re: smtpctl spf walk -6 ?
On 5/12/21 2:56 PM, Martijn van Duren wrote: Apparently it's a problem in glibc's inet_net_pton. It does not support AF_INET6. to.c has the same problem and works around this problem by handcrafting broken_inet_net_pton_ipv6(). Would it be possible to use inet_pton() ? Regards Harri
Re: smtpctl spf walk -6 ?
On Wed, 2021-05-12 at 13:33 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: > On 5/12/21 8:56 AM, nathanael wrote: > > > > this is what i get on my machine: > > > > ~ echo spf.protection.outlook.com | smtpctl spf walk > > 40.92.0.0/15 > > 40.107.0.0/16 > > 52.100.0.0/14 > > 104.47.0.0/17 > > 2a01:111:f400::/48 > > 2a01:111:f403::/48 > > 51.4.72.0/24 > > 51.5.72.0/24 > > 51.5.80.0/27 > > 20.47.149.138/32 > > 51.4.80.0/27 > > 2a01:4180:4051:0800::/64 > > 2a01:4180:4050:0800::/64 > > 2a01:4180:4051:0400::/64 > > 2a01:4180:4050:0400::/64 > > > > no idea why you don't see the ipv6 addresses > > > > On OpenBSD 6.8 and 6.9 I get the expected result, too. The problem > shows up on Debian 10 and Unstable (opensmtpd 6.8.0p2). > > Using strace I verified that smtpctl and dig connect to the same DNS > server. Yet dig reports the IPv6 addresses, smtptl spf walk doesn't. > Its unlikely that the DNS server drops the IPv6 addresses from a TXT > record, anyway. > > Maybe its a problem of the BSD compatibility layer, included in > the portable version? > > > Regards > Harri > Apparently it's a problem in glibc's inet_net_pton. It does not support AF_INET6. to.c has the same problem and works around this problem by handcrafting broken_inet_net_pton_ipv6(). Someone from -portable should probably copy this function over to spfwalk.c. martijn@
Re: smtpctl spf walk -6 ?
On 12.05.2021 14:33, Harald Dunkel wrote: On 5/12/21 8:56 AM, nathanael wrote: this is what i get on my machine: ~ echo spf.protection.outlook.com | smtpctl spf walk 40.92.0.0/15 40.107.0.0/16 52.100.0.0/14 104.47.0.0/17 2a01:111:f400::/48 2a01:111:f403::/48 51.4.72.0/24 51.5.72.0/24 51.5.80.0/27 20.47.149.138/32 51.4.80.0/27 2a01:4180:4051:0800::/64 2a01:4180:4050:0800::/64 2a01:4180:4051:0400::/64 2a01:4180:4050:0400::/64 no idea why you don't see the ipv6 addresses On OpenBSD 6.8 and 6.9 I get the expected result, too. The problem shows up on Debian 10 and Unstable (opensmtpd 6.8.0p2). Using strace I verified that smtpctl and dig connect to the same DNS server. Yet dig reports the IPv6 addresses, smtptl spf walk doesn't. Its unlikely that the DNS server drops the IPv6 addresses from a TXT record, anyway. Maybe its a problem of the BSD compatibility layer, included in the portable version? Regards Harri I see the same on CentOS 8 with 6.8p2: echo spf.protection.outlook.com | smtpctl spf walk 40.92.0.0/15 40.107.0.0/16 52.100.0.0/14 104.47.0.0/17 51.4.72.0/24 51.5.72.0/24 51.5.80.0/27 20.47.149.138/32 51.4.80.0/27 Good luck, Reio
Re: smtpctl spf walk -6 ?
On 5/12/21 8:56 AM, nathanael wrote: this is what i get on my machine: ~ echo spf.protection.outlook.com | smtpctl spf walk 40.92.0.0/15 40.107.0.0/16 52.100.0.0/14 104.47.0.0/17 2a01:111:f400::/48 2a01:111:f403::/48 51.4.72.0/24 51.5.72.0/24 51.5.80.0/27 20.47.149.138/32 51.4.80.0/27 2a01:4180:4051:0800::/64 2a01:4180:4050:0800::/64 2a01:4180:4051:0400::/64 2a01:4180:4050:0400::/64 no idea why you don't see the ipv6 addresses On OpenBSD 6.8 and 6.9 I get the expected result, too. The problem shows up on Debian 10 and Unstable (opensmtpd 6.8.0p2). Using strace I verified that smtpctl and dig connect to the same DNS server. Yet dig reports the IPv6 addresses, smtptl spf walk doesn't. Its unlikely that the DNS server drops the IPv6 addresses from a TXT record, anyway. Maybe its a problem of the BSD compatibility layer, included in the portable version? Regards Harri
Re: smtpctl spf walk -6 ?
Harald Dunkel wrote: > Hi folks, > > I am a big fan of IPv6, so I wonder why smtpctl spf walk omits > all the IPv6 addresses? > > # echo spf.protection.outlook.com | smtpctl spf walk > 40.92.0.0/15 > 40.107.0.0/16 > 52.100.0.0/14 > 104.47.0.0/17 > 51.4.72.0/24 > 51.5.72.0/24 > 51.5.80.0/27 > 20.47.149.138/32 > 51.4.80.0/27 > > # dig spf.protection.outlook.com TXT +short | tr \ \\n > "v=spf1 > ip4:40.92.0.0/15 > ip4:40.107.0.0/16 > ip4:52.100.0.0/14 > ip4:104.47.0.0/17 > ip6:2a01:111:f400::/48 > ip6:2a01:111:f403::/48 > include:spfd.protection.outlook.com > -all" > > # echo spf.protection.outlook.com | smtpctl spf walk -6 > invalid command > > > Regards > Harri this is what i get on my machine: ~ echo spf.protection.outlook.com | smtpctl spf walk 40.92.0.0/15 40.107.0.0/16 52.100.0.0/14 104.47.0.0/17 2a01:111:f400::/48 2a01:111:f403::/48 51.4.72.0/24 51.5.72.0/24 51.5.80.0/27 20.47.149.138/32 51.4.80.0/27 2a01:4180:4051:0800::/64 2a01:4180:4050:0800::/64 2a01:4180:4051:0400::/64 2a01:4180:4050:0400::/64 no idea why you don't see the ipv6 addresses
smtpctl spf walk -6 ?
Hi folks, I am a big fan of IPv6, so I wonder why smtpctl spf walk omits all the IPv6 addresses? # echo spf.protection.outlook.com | smtpctl spf walk 40.92.0.0/15 40.107.0.0/16 52.100.0.0/14 104.47.0.0/17 51.4.72.0/24 51.5.72.0/24 51.5.80.0/27 20.47.149.138/32 51.4.80.0/27 # dig spf.protection.outlook.com TXT +short | tr \ \\n "v=spf1 ip4:40.92.0.0/15 ip4:40.107.0.0/16 ip4:52.100.0.0/14 ip4:104.47.0.0/17 ip6:2a01:111:f400::/48 ip6:2a01:111:f403::/48 include:spfd.protection.outlook.com -all" # echo spf.protection.outlook.com | smtpctl spf walk -6 invalid command Regards Harri
