Re: [spfbis] [dmarc-ietf] SPF doesn't accommodate third level .name domains?
John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 03 June 2022 21:24 UTC
Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 81FE8C14F745 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 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_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=Chv+6Y8q; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=Q+BBCZ7K
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 jPhVt5iU-1ll for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 2A283C14F741 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 2965 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2022 21:24:29 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=b92.629a7c0d.k2206; bh=AExvtv+QLDMpjF9VTe2thxrB8Cs5QW0gyjezNIxDn7w=; b=Chv+6Y8qS+mNuoZ//77wJEq+kk0g1aCk0if7pXT2nJXpOs1x4CRkfQ3ncjUOIwUs/1fbJHSlWgHEnIwKpj7JO0Jwrqvtl+ciAjY7Y2lp7uabqjIRvNobP74zPBbgKcJIaxB0dnWdMg54XHehrpv8LeSHH27PeHTCr+1Gp/YikBGtazKv/NPsPFpDtSPtg7IN5obUp7jrUiJ50ipczOEhpZ+obzYn6fz/BAoYUkxZVI3hw39vozKxGOYALFAQ5n5idZKU/BRUxFz4tAdKI2IWtpjM26QwUV+NLMMzwy9rLZDdp/XbVRA6p1Ngj56NSFPCOTehHDZZfNXG8QMMSgVOBQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=b92.629a7c0d.k2206; bh=AExvtv+QLDMpjF9VTe2thxrB8Cs5QW0gyjezNIxDn7w=; b=Q+BBCZ7KopEqLUsi6pcaSq/2BrW0sFrZtQLSN6mrvO/cBCKdwQfiNoe2PdWDZgEesPueJTeqegAvXK73+LDOCQisFPyfTS+86I0HJSkY8NpCBjV1S6xanZjWsumI64PrEAZ8vk4qbkIPjWVCV+lnJ0q/e34qyUh1M+GXc6YYej3ooqQLAlZKT20xKUEGIZj1lrRvj4l7hMRA6orfkUPblkSA3W+Gqnbt9kaYxDaTr3MOHh3xxkU9uVt9q/oUyUDK3j1453fnkRp0LyGe2+dj91YMIHOEyygwjSCzps373BchQ7BVXaarDv+ZzljIhWoXSP12xWalerTFguY0pHQ8Zw==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 03 Jun 2022 21:24:29 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7250C42E8803; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 17:24:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6C6F42E87E5; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 17:24:27 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2022 17:24:27 -0400
Message-ID: <40ed53c6-0c32-4f1e-d8eb-4d75c4cf973e@taugh.com>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: william@leibzon.org, spfbis@ietf.org
X-X-Sender: johnl@ary.qy
In-Reply-To: <1d278d13a8520bd82ae8b3166a3a3613@leibzon.org>
References: <20220603200204.3442942E787F@ary.qy> <1d278d13a8520bd82ae8b3166a3a3613@leibzon.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/oEGHF_mpzGNEXhkfZQqZFOVu2Yo>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] [dmarc-ietf] SPF doesn't accommodate third level .name domains?
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 03 Jun 2022 21:24:46 -0000
> While _spf suffix is cleaner and good practice it is not even necessary. It
> would be enough to just have:
> bustos.name. IN TXT "v=spf1 include:%{l}.bustos.name ?all
But since it is not going to happen, why are we still arguing about it?
Signed,
Confused
>> Except, as we may have mentioned a few times, the .name ICANN contract
>> has no provision for adding SPF records like this. The registry only
>> forwards incoming mail. It doesn't handle outgoing mail.