Re: [dmarc-ietf] Using CNAME records to DMARC templates causes issues
Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> Tue, 02 March 2021 11:51 UTC
Return-Path: <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.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 245843A166F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 03:51:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=gmail.com
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 mC5-Do6rO1-I for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 03:51:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52e.google.com (mail-ed1-x52e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 180DA3A166E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 03:51:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id c6so24840406ede.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Mar 2021 03:51:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ba2tmH/1rNZl9oRRa99iJC+XjWyMrfLPKSrrwyWxI8I=; b=DZMhlgMvoQFmJpGKA8X0GW4VgMGzNVyw5/zbvNfPRTX+4xOWLYTrQpFsNxURRpz2gq 5lFibSiBySZ2/q8JTlc2/DivDE/ySZ+cURu8BAREboRZVWG5AjQ9vq3yf/O87eHZbx1g r4Xgdi2rf6T+ceQay0um04YxyDsTbikX4BJ4YS1VAgyiOW19ioYhMwtMHLMkWc48rcQy t+A0wn+TtySg9Yhl0QJC6baAcOCIUXffOZntH8zPAj42NULY4PX3NUXmBSnyUomm5RNt /7xjvizvuFRv7uhj/EXm3QEClgL/xC6YdxfDaRjYW0gjQzBqBwYjwEV2mwWFWnJ69Jig +A7Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ba2tmH/1rNZl9oRRa99iJC+XjWyMrfLPKSrrwyWxI8I=; b=sZUVEhNz03E5k0VbJalOJcsw2sYABQISmwLg+a8N4o3vYcKiGOYczM01l4d8hbs/w4 BG05DO4PAnGzdhRejZr9sK8eIwiPfslFQHcR/ft0p0uXFQm7ACZqucAKYORIxf89U/lp Xgi5ZYi6oNmsS8d3sJ0v+1iRlFa9wzhBYQrlr+53ZcYW0qfv+cqCEP2pm4qWEUthMCZ/ JBMFwhleCMH0XsMlR1k7Y9UA/Ww5G/pL1OYpAoTmrWvTV+TdicKPh1qoPkkACLiyVsLx xcye++D8DLCltdW0TWwcYhic27gEqhJl2ITuqgzHPCWvlQhkF2lLLGkqD5dIXqNTLKJw JhRQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531JZ6TERJP7kTNRPX1mExBaD+kDl8VaBFdoW7q5BmcZRn/jRqYD jTw8/HzyQGxidRFGiOVGleCptj21fDXrhy6gWdE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwrUrBfp17fx4ErmqM/e6MMj+Pf1iiy1qcS7eLTdn7F+BmlBEHIHzUKmZxSeo6x1x5IB5qx+hHSoMFuhV+Jnzw=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:d753:: with SMTP id i19mr19535888edj.43.1614685889452; Tue, 02 Mar 2021 03:51:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <edfb0a04df4620f8b9f6eaa659923d02@jbsoft.nl> <1bdd6695-2198-2bcf-f9e2-33d43f9c2bf1@cert.ee> <DB7PR08MB3498C21C6CF8631243BEF4D8BB999@DB7PR08MB3498.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CADyWQ+EWQ9wo5f1qyQJRatO=vxJhKON=f5=X7iH0=u7nbJHZ+Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+EWQ9wo5f1qyQJRatO=vxJhKON=f5=X7iH0=u7nbJHZ+Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2021 06:51:17 -0500
Message-ID: <CAH48Zfw8+ZdrUmEFCAd210E6YUENJgYh_bpZa2qkpMWCHJFkrg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Henning Krause <mail=40henningkrause.eu@dmarc.ietf.org>, "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dd616405bc8c5a8d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/dqI9-P8_QEOpJYurBZHPfhFicLU>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Using CNAME records to DMARC templates causes issues
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: Tue, 02 Mar 2021 11:51:33 -0000
Because CNAME usage was not mentioned in the previous DMARC document, existing implementations may not have tested this configuration. For the policy publishing organization, this increases the possibility that some recipients may treat the mail as not protected by DMARC. As with any deployment issue, the publishing organization has no reliable way to know if the deployment of DMARC implementations with full CNAME support is "essentially complete". This uncertainty may be acceptable for some organizations, but may be an obstacle for others, depending on their motivations for implementing DMARC. On the implementation side, the use of CNAME will introduce the possibility of referral errors, which may or may not require mentioning in the DMARC specification, since such issues have probably been addressed in core DNS documents. The issues that come to mind are: CNAME referrals to non-existent names Nested CNAME referrals (what depth is allowed?) CNAME referrals that produce loops or excessive nesting depth. DF On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 6:12 AM Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > Using a CNAME at _dmarc.example should not be a problem, as long as > the CNAME target is a TXT record. The DNS resolver functions should > should handle this seamlessly. This does sound like a vendor software > problem. > > I am aware of DKIM records being deployed using CNAMEs pointing to a TXT > record target. > Has anyone seen the above error condition when testing DKIM records? > > This definitely sounds like an issue with the software. > > Nobody should shy away from publishing DMARC records that are CNAMEs to > DMARC > TXT records elsewhere. Using this design should be strongly encouraged. > > tim > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
- [dmarc-ietf] Using CNAME records to DMARC templat… jbouwh
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Using CNAME records to DMARC tem… Tõnu Tammer
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Using CNAME records to DMARC tem… Henning Krause
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Using CNAME records to DMARC tem… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Using CNAME records to DMARC tem… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Using CNAME records to DMARC tem… jbouwh
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Using CNAME records to DMARC tem… Tõnu Tammer
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Using CNAME records to DMARC tem… Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Using CNAME records to DMARC tem… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Using CNAME records to DMARC tem… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Using CNAME records to DMARC tem… John Levine