Re: [Asrg] DNS basics, was overloading server names doesn't work

Douglas Otis <> Tue, 09 February 2010 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAF7D3A75BF for <>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:25:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.414
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.414 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.184, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aVWsQmL4KtHK for <>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:25:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A9DE3A75B3 for <>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:25:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8433FA94765 for <>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:26:34 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:26:31 -0800
From: Douglas Otis <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1002082110250.10191@simone.lan> <> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1002091121080.5333@simone.lan> <> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1002091154380.5333@simone.lan> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030401070505010101030704"
Subject: Re: [Asrg] DNS basics, was overloading server names doesn't work
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:25:32 -0000

On 2/9/10 10:34 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 2/9/2010 9:11 AM, John R Levine wrote:
>>>>>> Nope, that won't work. CNAMEs don't do a partial match.
>>> Where did I or anyone else specify a partial match?
>> The user thinks his POP server is called When he
>> looks up, what do you expect to happen?
> He'll get a TXT record back.  This is nothing but exactly the same 
> mechanism that is used for DKIM and SRV, albeit with a different 
> underscore subdomain.
This overlooks an issue created by SPF having defined TXT records 
without prefix labels to permit wildcard use.  A query for IN TXT might obtain an unexpected wildcard 
TXT record.  There is no registry related to disambiguating TXT 
records.  When used for DKIM, cryptography attests validity.    There 
might be a better chance for an SRV label registry of being developed.  
SRV records offers a means to establish redirection, having a similar 
effect as a CNAME.

By using SRV records, a receiving domain controls where reports are to 
be sent.  SRV records even allows for load balancing techniques.