[Emailcore] Ticket #92: CNAME handling in “5.1. Locating the Target Host” (rfc5321bis)

Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Tue, 19 March 2024 06:40 UTC

Return-Path: <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
X-Original-To: emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B946C14F69D for <emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 23:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.806
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.806 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmail.fm header.b="Wovo29K1"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b="o5Y97HOK"
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 7_zl7-B0uljP for <emailcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 23:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fhigh2-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh2-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.153]) (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 1FCF4C14F61A for <emailcore@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 23:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailfhigh.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 802DB1140139; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 02:40:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap52 ([10.202.2.102]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 19 Mar 2024 02:40:04 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1710830404; x=1710916804; bh=CDBOgxg2H4Np+WmmFsN/vkoM+BI4FK7i M8YU396uwac=; b=Wovo29K1tYXWbPUCULAbWbnXsFkO4POEWW2sI4qtnNyMeJxX ZnlDxcNou9p5LxGK7hz6o7c6Y6Xo9lr451ib9fso9KxVxd1SXgP+yhxIOrwTo/9Z efhHlqcpElRwXOlpUAGKbCePdqsAN/SNQV4LcyqeU/Mn7aw4hYKeGiLHJicfB9Jf W+xAdSPy2iXkVcojF/9NcepsspwJTVPYfFGZEY9KRbZx1NRwbkCZBvSnRJCu9+QV xa2bEZuYZrulOOusG3PybqJILg0v7UTRgjqvDkbCluuFJWaGgsEtQ0EBz+L73CjA IVWdOxRtVFVYBMnJ7D5YXIdHOU4jOboYfKXwMg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1710830404; x=1710916804; bh=CDBOgxg2H4Np+WmmFsN/vkoM+BI4FK7iM8Y U396uwac=; b=o5Y97HOKKdQDDUpv8rLxi6vvlf1xcOeUR5WGkT/KkIL8rsuX9OT aHuQnheNqA8nwksqMZm6Efcuu3Qod8uBKB5fewvFyE5Y0JyXTinryn15Lr0yfGDl ZPJE/2VRunaR50WN+dYG+o0/nY8bjVF02LLbSjqpAVgFXY4CoBJC/NlgXB7JNsW6 cuNda7eXRFcWDf7BrSuFBiVPkPLyAO1rBKdvtoLZ9hygY3cF6HuIBLtTIIS9IfSZ XuRE99knVwmj1zTt1bVe9+bzMAv71tM2w1m+JTel3V0WC9yAnCStz1foNcTQ+u94 X2B0VpKbHMurtKjcN9DF8P1jvFMPrwAFDmg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:RDP5ZWjqIqJhODyPTmtiX0OmkBpRgKFS3fhNg0XuEODgWcwnlxdfkA> <xme:RDP5ZXBaTfd6pT9IDzUVhX_svEc37XPhZNuf9Wfapsq10ta_rb85uIql9cc5bjzak -YSIoyHTZw-KpGfzQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledrkeekgdellecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkfffhvffutgesthdtredtre erjeenucfhrhhomhepfdetlhgvgigvhicuofgvlhhnihhkohhvfdcuoegrrghmvghlnhhi khhovhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdhfmheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffeifedvfeejhe dvveehgeelkeetudevueeiteeuuedvjefhieeigedvjeegieeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfu ihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprggrmhgvlhhnihhkohhvsehfrg hsthhmrghilhdrfhhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:RDP5ZeF50EERPM7rMo5f0FcA0RKVey_MyXIZO4Hps2LGMtxAW2NH6g> <xmx:RDP5ZfR2kxENIEODWluxWiTZYlE2kc7isV8up62U0YgtifFN5dkQcg> <xmx:RDP5ZTyi3HVcxa3Ws6D7hb3ac16aj2hfY51Q1j2yRMeTDyRiX1laUA> <xmx:RDP5Zd6X6YDeBLDjrdscqD6ou175uSJnjBl3kzHOTw-r-KEtrWClTQ> <xmx:RDP5Ze86q60o-aiJWzVJfS3Olt28Qe7OMVv9ttFcH8RXbJ6fjexqyQ>
Feedback-ID: if62040e7:Fastmail
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 45EB3C60097; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 02:40:04 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-300-gdee1775a43-fm-20240315.001-gdee1775a
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <369a0a4a-9a33-442c-836c-2d4d388cce27@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 06:38:12 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
To: emailcore@ietf.org, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emailcore/ThE3x7LE1d1c_Mm6LEsFeurt-lQ>
Subject: [Emailcore] Ticket #92: CNAME handling in “5.1. Locating the Target Host” (rfc5321bis)
X-BeenThere: emailcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: EMAILCORE proposed working group list <emailcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/emailcore>, <mailto:emailcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/emailcore/>
List-Post: <mailto:emailcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emailcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emailcore>, <mailto:emailcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 06:40:11 -0000

Hi all,

In Section 5.1 I see the following text:

    The lookup first attempts to locate an MX record associated with the
    name. If a CNAME record is found, the resulting name is processed as
    if it were the initial name.

Is CNAME expansion only done once? Or multiple times? If
multiple times, what the minimal expected limit?

John Klensin suggested:

  RFC 1123 Section 5.2.2 prohibits CNAMEs in MAIL or RCPT
  commands. At some point we changed that and 2821 contains the
  text above, with no hints about iteration or recursion. I
  vaguely recall the change being made in some document between
  1123 and 2821, but that is a dozen or so very eventful years.

  I think being more specific requires involving the WG and
  recognizing that whatever we say is likely to render some
  existing implementation non-conforming. How would you feel
  about a statement in the A/S pointing out that long CNAME chains
  are a source of trouble, that, when possible, one should stick
  to 1123-style canonical names, and when that is not possible, to
  try to keep the chains short.

After thinking a bit more about this, I think I am happy with this proposal.
John, do you think I should just reassign this ticket to A/S or do you think some small clarification is needed in rfc5321bis?

Best Regards,
Alexey