Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-livingood-dns-redirect-00

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Mon, 13 July 2009 11:21 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 160F73A6CE9 for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 04:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.049
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.550, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Hctcx-V8AhK for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 04:21:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BA243A6D29 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 04:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:58126) by ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.150]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1MQJbM-0005PG-1A (Exim 4.70) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:21:44 +0100
Received: from fanf2 (helo=localhost) by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local-esmtp id 1MQJbM-0003oB-BA (Exim 4.67) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:21:44 +0100
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:21:44 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
In-Reply-To: <87tz1hyokg.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0907131217470.30197@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <C67B83C4.E855%Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com> <87ws6enw09.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <74DA3552-160F-4912-B8B4-FAD506B4D4D1@eng.colt.net> <4A5AEA32.5010102@NLnetLabs.nl> <87tz1hyokg.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org, "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>, Jelte Jansen <jelte@NLnetLabs.nl>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-livingood-dns-redirect-00
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:21:19 -0000

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Jelte Jansen:
> >
> > then a SERVFAIL will also result in an e-mail bounce that says
> > connection refused
>
> Not a hard 5xx error?

No, both SERVFAIL and connection refused are equivalent to 4yz temporary
failures.

> > instead of DNS error (assuming there's no e-mail
> > sink on the host that is redirected to). Fun times for the helpdesk.
>
> Only if the mail server falls back to the A record if the MX lookup
> results in SERVFAIL, which seems like a questionable approach to me.

Yes, it would be wrong to do that.

> Anyway, I think DNS rewriting is mainly for folks who also block
> 25/TCP in- and outgoing or list the address space on the PBL and
> similar DNSBLs, so the SMTP argument is not really valid anymore.

The draft should probably say something like that explicitly.

However there's an unbounded number of similar problematic examples: what
if the user is running an XMPP server?

RFC 4084 is probably relevant.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS.
MODERATE OR GOOD.