Ubuntu

Activity log for bug #954936

Date Who What changed Old value New value Message
2012-03-14 11:32:55 Scott Kitterman bug added bug
2012-03-14 11:33:22 Scott Kitterman bug watch added http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=663595
2012-03-14 11:33:22 Scott Kitterman bug task added pyspf (Debian)
2012-03-14 11:34:18 Scott Kitterman nominated for series Ubuntu Lucid
2012-03-14 11:34:18 Scott Kitterman bug task added pyspf (Ubuntu Lucid)
2012-03-14 11:34:18 Scott Kitterman nominated for series Ubuntu Maverick
2012-03-14 11:34:18 Scott Kitterman bug task added pyspf (Ubuntu Maverick)
2012-03-14 11:34:18 Scott Kitterman nominated for series Ubuntu Natty
2012-03-14 11:34:18 Scott Kitterman bug task added pyspf (Ubuntu Natty)
2012-03-14 11:34:18 Scott Kitterman nominated for series Ubuntu Oneiric
2012-03-14 11:34:18 Scott Kitterman bug task added pyspf (Ubuntu Oneiric)
2012-03-14 11:34:49 Scott Kitterman pyspf (Ubuntu): importance Undecided High
2012-03-14 11:34:49 Scott Kitterman pyspf (Ubuntu): status New Fix Released
2012-03-14 11:50:28 Scott Kitterman pyspf (Ubuntu Lucid): status New In Progress
2012-03-14 11:50:31 Scott Kitterman pyspf (Ubuntu Maverick): status New In Progress
2012-03-14 11:50:34 Scott Kitterman pyspf (Ubuntu Natty): status New In Progress
2012-03-14 11:50:36 Scott Kitterman pyspf (Ubuntu Oneiric): status New In Progress
2012-03-14 11:50:40 Scott Kitterman pyspf (Ubuntu Lucid): importance Undecided High
2012-03-14 11:50:42 Scott Kitterman pyspf (Ubuntu Maverick): importance Undecided High
2012-03-14 11:50:45 Scott Kitterman pyspf (Ubuntu Natty): importance Undecided High
2012-03-14 11:50:50 Scott Kitterman pyspf (Ubuntu Oneiric): importance Undecided High
2012-03-14 11:51:01 Scott Kitterman pyspf (Ubuntu Lucid): milestone lucid-updates
2012-03-14 11:51:18 Scott Kitterman pyspf (Ubuntu Maverick): milestone maverick-updates
2012-03-14 11:51:23 Scott Kitterman pyspf (Ubuntu Natty): milestone natty-updates
2012-03-14 11:51:27 Scott Kitterman pyspf (Ubuntu Oneiric): milestone oneiric-updates
2012-03-14 11:51:32 Scott Kitterman pyspf (Ubuntu Lucid): assignee Scott Kitterman (kitterman)
2012-03-14 11:51:34 Scott Kitterman pyspf (Ubuntu Maverick): assignee Scott Kitterman (kitterman)
2012-03-14 11:51:38 Scott Kitterman pyspf (Ubuntu Natty): assignee Scott Kitterman (kitterman)
2012-03-14 11:51:39 Scott Kitterman pyspf (Ubuntu Oneiric): assignee Scott Kitterman (kitterman)
2012-03-14 11:51:52 Scott Kitterman bug added subscriber Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team
2012-03-14 13:43:30 Bug Watch Updater pyspf (Debian): status Unknown Fix Released
2012-03-14 20:39:46 Clint Byrum pyspf (Ubuntu Lucid): status In Progress Fix Committed
2012-03-14 20:39:51 Clint Byrum bug added subscriber SRU Verification
2012-03-14 20:39:58 Clint Byrum tags verification-needed
2012-03-14 20:40:36 Clint Byrum pyspf (Ubuntu Maverick): status In Progress Fix Committed
2012-03-14 20:41:58 Clint Byrum pyspf (Ubuntu Natty): status In Progress Fix Committed
2012-03-14 20:43:09 Clint Byrum pyspf (Ubuntu Oneiric): status In Progress Fix Committed
2012-03-14 21:18:16 Launchpad Janitor branch linked lp:ubuntu/oneiric-proposed/pyspf
2012-03-14 21:18:21 Launchpad Janitor branch linked lp:ubuntu/natty-proposed/pyspf
2012-03-14 21:18:34 Launchpad Janitor branch linked lp:ubuntu/lucid-proposed/pyspf
2012-03-14 21:18:38 Launchpad Janitor branch linked lp:ubuntu/maverick-proposed/pyspf
2012-03-14 21:46:27 Scott Kitterman tags verification-needed verification-done
2012-03-14 21:47:30 Scott Kitterman description Intermediate CNAMEs encountered while parsing SPF records confuse python-spf into returning a hard error (domain has two or more type TXT spf records) when really there is no second SPF record, and the existing one is indeed valid. Discovered while manually looking at the SPF record for "support.zendesk.com" (which was in turn included by the SPF record for "dropbox.com"): $ /usr/share/pyshared/spf.py support.zendesk.com PermError: Two or more type TXT spf records found. $ host -t txt support.zendesk.com support.zendesk.com is an alias for www.shard-2.int.zendesk.com. www.shard-2.int.zendesk.com is an alias for www.pod-1.int.zendesk.com. www.pod-1.int.zendesk.com descriptive text "v=spf1 ip4:184.106.12.190 ip4:173.203.47.176 ip4:173.203.47.177 ~all" $ /usr/share/pyshared/spf.py www.pod-1.int.zendesk.com v=spf1 ip4:184.106.12.190 ip4:173.203.47.176 ip4:173.203.47.177 ~all In other words, the SPF record for www.pod-1.int.zendesk.com is valid, and so is the one for support.zendesk.com, but the (double) indirection via CNAME(s) causes an error. The consequence is some domains with valid SPF records are perceived as having faulty ones, and then depending on how SPF is used on the receiving end, email messages from the affected domains may be mis-classified as spam or outright rejected. TEST CASE: using the existing package, do: $ /usr/share/pyshared/spf.py support.zendesk.com See the error that's generated: PermError: Two or more type TXT spf records found. Install the updated packages and repeat: $ /usr/share/pyshared/spf.py support.zendesk.com See that you now get the correct reply: v=spf1 ip4:184.106.12.190 ip4:173.203.47.176 ip4:173.203.47.177 ~all Intermediate CNAMEs encountered while parsing SPF records confuse python-spf into returning a hard error (domain has two or more type TXT spf records) when really there is no second SPF record, and the existing one is indeed valid. Discovered while manually looking at the SPF record for "support.zendesk.com" (which was in turn included by the SPF record for "dropbox.com"):  $ /usr/share/pyshared/spf.py support.zendesk.com  PermError: Two or more type TXT spf records found.  $ host -t txt support.zendesk.com  support.zendesk.com is an alias for www.shard-2.int.zendesk.com.  www.shard-2.int.zendesk.com is an alias for www.pod-1.int.zendesk.com.  www.pod-1.int.zendesk.com descriptive text "v=spf1 ip4:184.106.12.190  ip4:173.203.47.176 ip4:173.203.47.177 ~all"  $ /usr/share/pyshared/spf.py www.pod-1.int.zendesk.com  v=spf1 ip4:184.106.12.190 ip4:173.203.47.176 ip4:173.203.47.177 ~all In other words, the SPF record for www.pod-1.int.zendesk.com is valid, and so is the one for support.zendesk.com, but the (double) indirection via CNAME(s) causes an error. The consequence is some domains with valid SPF records are perceived as having faulty ones, and then depending on how SPF is used on the receiving end, email messages from the affected domains may be mis-classified as spam or outright rejected. TEST CASE: using the existing package, do: $ /usr/share/pyshared/spf.py cname.kitterman.com See the error that's generated: PermError: Two or more type TXT spf records found. Install the updated packages and repeat: $ /usr/share/pyshared/spf.py cname.kitterman.com See that you now get the correct reply: v=spf1 ip4:72.81.252.18 ip4:72.81.252.19 ip4:208.43.65.50 ip4:72.81.252.20 ?ip4:209.68.4.105 ?include:webmail.pair.com ?include:relay.pair.com -all
2012-03-22 07:37:33 Launchpad Janitor pyspf (Ubuntu Lucid): status Fix Committed Fix Released
2012-03-22 07:37:38 Launchpad Janitor pyspf (Ubuntu Maverick): status Fix Committed Fix Released
2012-03-22 07:37:42 Launchpad Janitor pyspf (Ubuntu Natty): status Fix Committed Fix Released
2012-03-22 07:37:48 Launchpad Janitor pyspf (Ubuntu Oneiric): status Fix Committed Fix Released