Office365/EOP IPv6 changes starting today

Terry Zink at Microsoft posted earlier this week that Office365/Exchange Online Protection will have a significant change this week. Office365 uses Exchange Online Protection (EOP) for spam filtering and email protection. One of the requirements to send to EOP over IPv6 is to have the email authenticated with either SPF or DKIM.  If the mail sent to Office365/EOP over IPv6 is not authenticated with SPF or DKIM, EOP would reject the message with a 554 hard bounce message.  Most mail servers accept the 554 status code and would not retry the message.  After multiple 5xx hard bounces to an email address, many mail servers would unsubscribe the user from future email campaigns.  The update starting today April 24, will change the error status code for unauthenticated mail to EOP from a 554 hard bounce to a 450 soft bounce and a RFC-compliant and properly configured mail server would then retry the message.
Prior to April 24, 2015, EOP responds to unauthenticated mail with a status code of: “554 5.7.26 Service Unavailable, message sent over IPv6 must pass either SPF or DKIM validation”.

Starting April 24, 2015, EOP will respond with “450 4.7.26 Service unavailable, message sent over IPv6 must pass either SPF or DKIM validation”.

This means the sending mail server should retry the message to another MX server and if the sending mail server is dual stacked (sending on IPv6 and IPv4) it will try sending to the IPv6 MX server first then attempt to send the retry to a IPv4 MX server.
If you are sending over IPv6, Office 365/EOP also requires that the sending mail server IP address have a PTR record and if the sending mail server does not, EOP will reply with a hard bounce message of “550 5.7.25 Service unavailable, sending IPv6 address [$SenderIPAddress] must have a reverse DNS record”. There will be no change to PTR requirement for EOP, however all sending mail servers should have a PTR record.

Related Posts

DKIM is Done

This was posted to the IETF DKIM Working Group mailing list this morning:

Read More

Spam, Phish or Malware?

Some mornings I check mail from my phone. This showed up this morning.
PizzaHutMail
My first thought was “oh, no, Pizza Hut is spamming, wonder who sold them my address.”
Then I remembered that iOS is horrible and won’t show you anything other than the Friendly From and maybe it was some weird phishing scheme.
When I got to my real mail client I checked headers, and sure enough, it wasn’t really from Pizza Hut. I’m guessing actually malware, but I don’t have a forensics machine to click the link and I’m not doing it on anything I can’t wipe (and have isolated from the rest of my network).
The frustrating thing for me is that this is an authenticated email. It not from Pizza Hut, the address belongs to some company in France. Apparently, that company has had their systems cracked and malware sent through them. Fully authenticated malware, pretending to be Pizza Hut, and passing authentication on various devices.
Pizza Hut isn’t currently publishing a DMARC record, but in this case, a DMARC record for Pizza Hut wouldn’t matter. None of the email addresses in the headers point to Pizza Hut.
I spent last week listening to a lot of people discussing DMARC and authentication and protecting people from scams and headers. But those all the protocols in the world won’t protect against this kind of thing. Phishing and malware can’t be fixed by technology alone. Even if every domain on the planet published a p=reject policy, mail like this would still get through.
 
 
 

Read More

Hotmail moves to SPF authentication

Hotmail has recently stopped using Sender ID for email authentication and switched to authenticating with SPF. The protocol differences between SenderID and SPF were subtle and most senders who were getting a pass at Hotmail were already publishing SPF records.
From an email in my inbox from September:

Read More