IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 136 - DMARC Records Can Be CNAMEs

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Sat, 16 March 2024 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 81827C14F6B0 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.408
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.408 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b="ptkQkof+"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b="g9diOgwU"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 65Am8pmlbG2h for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 992D7C14F68E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7AE8F8022F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:38:31 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1710607096; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=mQ0PHLnFcvLs6ZqGhkkhygMDU3w+47l8bxU3Dl8VyYs=; b=ptkQkof+en3/gkgW2GCavOSQqeoDVcqlvukgMdwpSq0vW4I+Yk3dJExvtjdS24Dz0CoYY VHsxI8GzYL79XjcBQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1710607096; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=mQ0PHLnFcvLs6ZqGhkkhygMDU3w+47l8bxU3Dl8VyYs=; b=g9diOgwUeqwsE52/YKmq8EiAycKQjsm5OJ694NgIdpVg5PLEcQljPXi/jftJufoadtX7M 4dXZOJdjaNaaw7JhMnPEPSBNOT2fhlFHO2S3wh6fTRkfEdRiz3Nr+1jCJoWJpsEsVcLa2QV m+NT4arHBF5nkMCyLm2+eCihBA0wzBG0ENmSMrGgYOb+XYyN4ObrYw+XHgGRRgEhY1NPwxR qtYKe5RRhPjNaahU65snDyq76TPNop8lXdg9QwIBCDb4/L0D0BZY7rWsQROeN0lOF+Nq7mY Tk4YRCADIvXP025eEhLfEm9ctGDrMBT1/WjlCFePe7O+S0YkiLpDNWaQ4B7A==
Received: from zini-1880.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29862F80211 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:38:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:38:09 -0400
Message-ID: <14622763.LyJXvKb98q@zini-1880>
In-Reply-To: <26101.24038.278402.590044@fireball.acr.fi>
References: <CAHej_8my0_2y5NqsqawiH3x1S5Xn14eGXGYDNfHmPOWu585TKw@mail.gmail.com> <20240314231133.373738563BAE@ary.qy> <26101.24038.278402.590044@fireball.acr.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/kiz636pnUeJ5e1PtTAtTBBnswsw>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 136 - DMARC Records Can Be CNAMEs
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:38:46 -0000

On Saturday, March 16, 2024 4:52:54 AM EDT Tero Kivinen wrote:
> John Levine writes:
> > It appears that Todd Herr  <todd.herr@valimail.com> said:
> > >I agree that clarifying it can't hurt, obviously, ...
> > 
> > I disagree, it does hurt.
> > 
> > If we say you're allowed to use CNAMEs to point to DMARC records,
> > people are to say uh oh, is there something special here? What about
> > DKIM records? what about SPF records? how about SPF includes? or SPF
> > redirects?
> > 
> > Really, there is nothing to say here, so let's not say it.
> 
> We could add an example Appendix B that uses CNAME, so that would give
> indication, yes of course you can use CNAMEs, without explicitly
> adding text that might cause confusion.

I think we have more important things to spend our time on.

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email