IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] NXDOMAIN

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> Mon, 05 April 2021 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
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 6CEF43A299D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:56:27 -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 (1024-bit key) header.d=tnetconsulting.net
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 3HcLOlE3r9iW for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net (tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net [IPv6:2600:3c00:e000:1e9::8849]) (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 010CD3A299B for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Contact-TNet-Consulting-Abuse-for-assistance by tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-3) with ESMTPSA id 135LuKvA018227 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:56:21 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=tnetconsulting.net; s=2019; t=1617659781; bh=+156nlwPYSilIKuBJVgOidrXJCyCawPGkiilNPjK+VQ=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent: MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Cc:Content-Disposition: Content-Language:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Date:From: In-Reply-To:Message-ID:MIME-Version:References:Reply-To: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Sender:Subject:To: User-Agent; b=ArDZAiVbt5hXU5P5S/13DmuacVFpRsTeG+IanwLWLqryUjfNX7L08amovKBFj+zMr IGJheejDUU8GQIdYaT86bQsreZtLZXZ3u31ciY7dEm2VckHjf7e0aV6KkpsMZ8dOOJ IOYXZw8cG/DXLrqQsq12RAuRC57wyM0O8f8BEqYA=
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <CAH48ZfxjotxU8G4ZucGTqERP0ZXSF8i9EH9vvQyi2SacbPxvvw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHej_8=bMPC3qahKoNZFUncH6wAJgNtcRtFmpteXYmxursV9mg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
Organization: TNet Consulting
Message-ID: <e47e3102-c95e-b7af-2300-d148aa160eaf@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:56:22 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHej_8=bMPC3qahKoNZFUncH6wAJgNtcRtFmpteXYmxursV9mg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms070907030601010001040706"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/SxiIjjfg7srEhReBiCxhZXZEuG8>
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: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 21:56:27 -0000

On 4/5/21 3:46 PM, Todd Herr wrote:
> Several jobs ago, when I was in position to set anti-spam policy for a 
> mid-sized US-based cable ISP, if the RFC5321.From or RFC5322.From domain 
> lacked both an MX record and an A/AAAA record, that was enough for me to 
> reject the mail on the grounds that I was unwilling to accept anything 
> to which the recipient could not reply.

I'm surprised at requiring an /MX/ record.  I still see email routed to 
A / AAAA records for the domain when there isn't an MX record for said 
domain.

I wouldn't give your statement another thought if it was "an MX record 
or an A record or an AAAA record".  But /requiring/ an /MX/ record is a 
toe stubber for me.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email