Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #11 (and #112)

Yes, The test should most certainly define how MX="." and SPF="-ALL"
affect the test.  This is why I said that the test needs a more complete
definition, but many were unwilling to even address that part of the
problem.

Even with those modifications, the test is only applicable for names that
are also used for SMTP MAILFROM.   This does not cover all names that are
used for FROM.

I infer that the A/AAAA component is included in the test definition
because these might indicate an implicit MX.   The use of implicit MX is
unnecessary, and I suspect unlikely to be in use by DMARC-publishing
domains.    It would a minor compliance step to require domain owners to
replace implicit MX with explicit MX, so that the test will accurately
indicate names that are used for SMTP purposes.

Doug Foster

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 7:13 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:

> On Wed 16/Jun/2021 20:02:21 +0200 John Levine wrote:
> > Let's close ticket #112 and stop.
>
>
> I agree that the definition given in the PSD is clear enough:
>
>     For DMARC purposes, a non-existent domain is a domain for which there
>     is an NXDOMAIN or NODATA response for A, AAAA, and MX records.  This
>     is a broader definition than that in [RFC8020].
>
> However, by that definition a domain with a Null MX [RFC7505] is an
> existent
> domain for DMARC purposes.  Perhaps this apparent contradiction could be
> noted
> by adding a sentence somewhere, for example:
>
>     Even though the bare existence of a domain does not entail that it can
> send
>     or receive email, the presence or absence of the relevant DNS RRs
> determines
>     which policy between sp= and np= is applicable.  If a DMARC record is
> found
>     for a domain that would be non-existent by the above definition, the p=
>     policy defined there is still the one to be applied.
>
> Would that add clarity?
>
>
> Best
> Ale
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #11 (and #112) - Proposed language