Re: [dmarc-ietf] Nitpicky questions about DMARC record syntax

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 16 January 2019 23:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
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 5E34B131201 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:10:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=UMTrH0y8; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=Nu9t/ImI
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 NphrlopHcr4w for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:10:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57216130E46 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:10:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6288BC0633 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 23:09:49 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1547680189; bh=2zWfERGi6v2JH1TUbuUisF0G1dCqyN5NYLHD4i+M/hs=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=UMTrH0y8cRkj6M0mYxIr3kj2jN8zGb5GowrPxzTTFYeicbuB/0MeuMSNYE/eEuAxT KKQZ35O2Z/RGOcz1/VZm0z8yZRFEfWGtlVn7IrBldHB8qE4Q/KY8geIpwcAII+mohJ pul415DHzkGCmDylDR3TtcVZjClEphcJ1ThcuMoo=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cVPn37YJVovg for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 23:09:48 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 18:09:46 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1547680188; bh=2zWfERGi6v2JH1TUbuUisF0G1dCqyN5NYLHD4i+M/hs=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Nu9t/ImIkvxvNqRoGqTVp0U0tXIVQPiWlT+foX6QU3fsrmJOnp2kgLsJj18Zl5AVm ArTIA3ojmcZQpkJoQIp11UQuxVJdncH1x00eklOsakvB/Fep/88zAmU4UbiyDJbHvK MoVEzF7wNDq3JbHZRzcf/jlWQWVkmK95Lq9lzdOU=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20190116230946.tkfqcdmiawm4a3bu@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <20190116005804.A0A80200CACDA9@ary.qy> <b6d9024b-8a88-66fb-cfe7-800ee463c01c@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1901161029520.36401@ary.qy> <babe5ec6-9ceb-c7e1-1758-8dc20d116b55@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1901161050550.36401@ary.qy> <CABuGu1oqy8NxfpCZOu0v-z2D2MmZUfD43B3diGZ0xQtNwPD8EQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1901161222030.38502@ary.qy> <11a5d635-a16b-17b9-0ba6-7713b8f169e2@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <11a5d635-a16b-17b9-0ba6-7713b8f169e2@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Mh_zuQ5ySW4NtAUefr9Sq1YZUGA>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Nitpicky questions about DMARC record syntax
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: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 23:10:23 -0000

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 11:34:56AM -0700, Grant Taylor wrote:
> 
> However I feel like rejecting things because of additional white space (in
> front of v=...) or the wrong case is being a little bit pedantic.

I want to point out, because it's making me extremely itchy, that the
DNS itself did this for years.  One result is that vendors are about
to have a flag day in which a whole bunch of things are deprecated at
once in an effort to get rid of a lot of cruft.

Vendors are going to have a difficult time rejecting any heuristic
improvements if some of them work.  Already it is hard for DNS
providers to process these records because they're all TXT and the
semantics of the RRTYPE say that anything is allowed.  So I think
stricter implementations overall are probably the better path to
interoperability here, even if that hurts in the immediate term.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com