IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] NXDOMAIN

"Jan Bouwhuis (DMARC)" <dmarc-list@jbsoft.nl> Thu, 08 April 2021 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <dmarc-list@jbsoft.nl>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67BD73A1B00 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 13:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=jbsoft.nl
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FIBHGGYkzbim for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 13:20:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alpha.jbsoft.nl (alpha.jbsoft.nl [83.137.149.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D81373A1AFF for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 13:20:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpha.jbsoft.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 648B327FE42E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 22:20:21 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alpha.jbsoft.nl
Received: from alpha.jbsoft.nl ([83.137.149.52]) by localhost (alpha.jbsoft.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id dYggJodMnDKi for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 22:20:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:9e0:8705:ed01:2d70:382d:9e3c:e5bb] (unknown [IPv6:2001:9e0:8705:ed01:2d70:382d:9e3c:e5bb]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-384) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by alpha.jbsoft.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F59B27FE196 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 22:20:21 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 alpha.jbsoft.nl 3F59B27FE196
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jbsoft.nl; s=201607; t=1617913221; bh=cicF3jwOy7N6vGflbMJhatV0sG0NXh7IqwQyDn3cu8U=; h=From:Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=RusYi0vFY1VrTa9nbimeeRzKDjEywtFgzk0PMgXzTon4T8+Bz3uuLafEPo/xoV9Vz uPxNfgi2MlqseH0x1WWem+B8YtTkocb0mxUaTVgI0PzTpicd/LS0YP3Ys2Zzyq41Sh zGQVfvFXPlW+QzK9x6ko1ltS7AOmo1xmjQX33n0Dsh0GwRuCogB+rrnp+aseH0+Eiy hPx8u65M8C+hYwyK2lGWQ6zFBEcTF2bGSKc/1gju7OI4/SuaAj8kUSjgjm5krTPrig dvu3n1AgUAoQbdHLhR4qv3TeiIYwhn03wgJ44Wf4gcvO6VFoTTHNnNKu3SiVwaAhnM Inug2uYV2SVfg==
From: "Jan Bouwhuis (DMARC)" <dmarc-list@jbsoft.nl>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20210408182948.5E4AF7282ACE@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <eb522123-12e6-61bd-9a90-aed583c627ce@jbsoft.nl>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 22:20:21 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210408182948.5E4AF7282ACE@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: nl
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/6dO-iJIGRVU8u8KG9TEJUWJ73g8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] NXDOMAIN
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 20:20:34 -0000

You are right, it is a common practice to check on PTR records 
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2505).

Further for existing not mailing domains rfc7505 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7505 should be used.

Mail servers like postfix block connections by default when a null mx 
record is published.

Regards,

Jan Bouwhuis

Op 8-4-2021 om 20:29 schreef John Levine:

> It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> said:
>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 9:50 AM Douglas Foster <
>> dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why is it problematic to document this risk, and indicate that when "No
>>> Policy detected" occurs, it is recommended to check whether the domain
>>> exists, and if it does not exist then local policy for nonexistent 
>>> domains
>>> should be applied?
>>>
>> Can you put together an example message exhibiting the properties you're
>> talking about, and what DNS records are in play in that scenario?
>>
>> I still can't picture the problem you're trying to solve.
> My question would be what does it have to do with DMARC.
>
> We already have policies for dealing with non-existent domains 
> unrelated to DMARC.
>
> R's,
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email