IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 15 March 2024 01:34 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@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 CB09AC14F6AC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.107 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7EAeEPFqHREM for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x536.google.com (mail-ed1-x536.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::536]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 649D8C14F685 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x536.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-56893b3788cso613802a12.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1710466468; x=1711071268; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=UucTvz+i33HtyhvsdR1dW4L2nfYukflIm3b0R10QogI=; b=dPTCulIWNnhw73XKz2F30LsRj4rUtibs2+3v8NWGPDTTVjrSBbkYvviQcVLeQ7NRP8 45IY+Z2LnLu6ftQwE8b0EHa4OoyToFA+acZM1I8TjAnV6/dy/siiFTnEqVRQ1VmS4sMX 1DbyAMAlP2CaC94291IVkg1r1zAhvjLSfa7b/+PUDVJmK7O1n/3eqfEl4hvDKGUvqHZm QUABwN6lfoARogEZKTUr9HPD57MiBtGYfDoeG2jTm9q2DeR4H1EjHUjri9xxon9ripoU VRKnPmRBlvfHqCnjZ0wiUz+XiwebQo1A6s8f0NbuX28nkSJKLY/Kgp4yXBITjs6iwPig 5moQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1710466468; x=1711071268; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=UucTvz+i33HtyhvsdR1dW4L2nfYukflIm3b0R10QogI=; b=Q6wSx+3mhSoxnKwaQLNzHMbIlQvFfGtsMaf2mETTZeS0/uQoVpnu1f3gR0ROUBXDqq J9/QzW5Om/4l92Jw6qB3qJ+p5eahp0QkXpxvfiZw1K51Rqcp6qMU7gNY4cGRFfPKRmwT YlgVJ5I8OXqBlNj8wyFQsq7AwBmyfUuFBaCUjJ6ZLvXYUX49nEWMUFWu4nAUkOfEknF6 Z6pBYwqFqTAEOsUR8zlxqppF/JMM/F22s+9on9ZqGfYtZWocHoCi3Rrvj1XbTMsKXVqx GiT7J8CWIMKWyHA/2FeldEd7bVcZAy35GgUBYRGlZXP6bdUCHXcDCo6Hy9VmxOpnvKaw 2k8g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw2rN7yOmPUO2ZcDmXfh56aCOmHuZ+wanncjvdHj3om2hiY7mn2 lcvC39n78TfNPoLCOdGmj84rAQ+cPzDiQgj2FahQqIcCV0UDdtAU8qZuny51PeJmv8FfBl/drY1 iUHxUbwkf9hbaQkzKkOpVxPnQF+ul/UsH9qk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFWZ4TH3TXVyttoPXw5hAAhN2m/KWy0viG3pnm2DG3O92iEeVwI5m7nk0kBKb0X+bSr/RHwUgSydN6yzRqgdQk=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:53d9:b0:a45:bae1:b42a with SMTP id p25-20020a17090653d900b00a45bae1b42amr2113215ejo.5.1710466467772; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHej_8my0_2y5NqsqawiH3x1S5Xn14eGXGYDNfHmPOWu585TKw@mail.gmail.com> <20240314231133.373738563BAE@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <20240314231133.373738563BAE@ary.qy>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:34:15 +1000
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwaVs1D6EDxBLEeYm+Sfh7+pzarc4+A9RmJn-gr6-5MRiw@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, todd.herr@valimail.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000363fb00613a902e4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/r_YKInSyrHJ1yfip66T1eDtL8r8>
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: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:34:48 -0000

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 9:11 AM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

+1, I don't understand what needs to be clarified here.  If I ask for a TXT
record at a given name, I expect to get one back (or a non-success code).
It really doesn't matter to DMARC whether that process traversed a CNAME
record in the process.  (Or if it does matter, I've yet to see a reason
why.)

-MSK, p11g

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email