Re: [spfbis] Question about SPF checks based on RFC 7208

Kurt Andersen <kurta@drkurt.com> Mon, 02 May 2016 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <kurta@drkurt.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC27212D0C2 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2016 08:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.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 HOsDyyexy99g for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2016 08:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x230.google.com (mail-io0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::230]) (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 BBC0D12B038 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 May 2016 08:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x230.google.com with SMTP id f89so171617953ioi.0 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 May 2016 08:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=cASn+w7umGLuoA0FoJl4AaKlnLhYCCg071O/tBUuEYE=; b=NAiFnBJSVbJHgEEwuTzr4H0fdfoGE1H0tMeiXjGRSWDz7/FNkovE6L+8RRtvLDgfKV VIwiA851vppkb6VYiHCNsxt71nyF1WZgjBhnVN1iqYO9BbZuh1lMANaoXF2HC9IaHFzL 7zpp2SmEwVRNqrNBzOEchvPrpnvuZk3fi9kQg=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=cASn+w7umGLuoA0FoJl4AaKlnLhYCCg071O/tBUuEYE=; b=RQWzH3RV20ZJJ2CxLC6N7aLUVPkomz0Cu72eaRbpWa9VX9+tBLk3Xkv2Lp+BBeTQdP QtvOcOhEK6eGJc/0yUbjYbtKe8HRzNiOwsRdk3U2tX2nMvxjVmwNFXXIirWYUsqqWh2r sggiapcm6+0Begjz21L42vqGViD2yoUXvGhXWRGJgdHSrCUvGAy0B/l+9HvIHZdgMQhD /P9MlTGJdca840QhIFT9cyvdNyAFwAKywLHPECL2pec4G8o9Q7f1hS+AFl+Hw0GeGkqp zHZZWu2XZddEHKLrxh75gzb1Q5N/cQq3XV1ezMPL3cnLtTyXcxwZMP+09lRiDn4bUd9C sdrA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVrG4iH5walbWucnR7xeyq9uwrnbjQuvb0pB7EeEiVEmNVPB8TUyFzA0jAFNK3Ves0e4GL9M0jsFco14w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.175.104 with SMTP id y101mr42408128ioe.113.1462204577932; Mon, 02 May 2016 08:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.32.13 with HTTP; Mon, 2 May 2016 08:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20160502003646.101fc9c8@resistor.net>
References: <002101d1a342$c93e3000$5bba9000$@iname.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20160502003646.101fc9c8@resistor.net>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 08:56:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CABuGu1qf8tdzvwy+fhaTqKNyKQ1L0San8f54Cu-XbZXDLwn8fw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kurt Andersen <kurta@drkurt.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11449af67510da0531de08fe
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/5jqwJ1rCSiwiuk4mTCe1Yf6LHrg>
Cc: "spfbis@ietf.org" <spfbis@ietf.org>, Frank Bulk <frnkblk@iname.com>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Question about SPF checks based on RFC 7208
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spfbis/>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 15:56:25 -0000

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:58 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>; wrote:

> Hi Frank,
> At 17:45 30-04-2016, Frank Bulk wrote:
>
>>
>> . . . tries to work through the MX records of premieronline.net, but for
>> some reason it specifically queries for an AAAA for each MX record, of
>> which
>> we don't have one (because our inbound email gateway does not yet support
>> IPv6).  Since we have four MX records, it work through two of them (which
>> both fail) and then the tool hard fails saying that,
>>         "The maximum void DNS lookup limit of 2 has been exceeded during
>> the
>> evaluation (see RFC7208 Section 4.6.4.)."
>>
>
> It does not make sense to query for an "A" record when the client address
> is an IPv6 address.  The issue in your case is that your outbound is over
> IPv6 while you do not have inbound IPv6.  I took a quick look and I did not
> find a discussion about that in relation to the void DNS lookup limit in
> the mailing list archive.
>
> . . . does RFC 7208 need some clarification on this matter?  My guess
>>
> is that "it performs an address lookup on each MX name" is not equivalent
>> to
>> "check for an AAAA on each MX name and check for an A on each MX name",
>> but
>> I'm not sure.
>>
>
> Your question is about whether there is a "bug" in the technical
> specification.  The second sentence is about how to get around a "void DNS
> lookup".  At the moment I am not sure about what would be the appropriate
> answer.
>

My suggestion is to clarify exactly what constitutes a "void DNS lookup" in
the case of an MX mechanism. I suggest that we define a void MX lookup to
be one that either returns no records or returns the "null MX record"
(RFC7505). Could this be done as an erratum item?

I think we also need to highlight the importance of putting "lookup
dependent mechanisms", and especially 2nd degree dependent mechanisms (such
as mx) *after* any explicit IP specifications to publishers of SPF records.
The "traditional"/historical suggestion that has been provided by many
record creation "wizards" is flawed by putting "a mx" at the beginning of
their recommendations.

--Kurt Andersen