Thank you for the pointer Eric. Can someone explain why the chosen algorithm, which requires testing multiple conditions, is preferable to a single query for a name server record? Minimizing DNS traffic has been part of our recent discussion, and minimizing software complexity is always a good thing.
Can someone also explain why the DMARC appendix takes such a strong stance against all queries for non-existent domains, regardless of technique? It seems like the philosophical incompatibilities need to be addressed before both documents advance. DMARC is specified only as a test for the RFC5322.From domain. RFC5321.MailFrom domains may also be non-existent. They will return SPF NONE, but that is an ambiguous result, and SPF has no organization default mechanism. - Is there data to indicate whether evaluators have found that checking the RFC5321.MailFrom for non-existence is useful? - Suppose that the NP policy becomes generalized, and a domain has asserted a "must-exist" DMARC policy. Should a non-existent subdomain used in the RFC5321.MailFrom address be treated skeptically? I can imagine a scenario where a spammer uses a bogus subdomain of a legitimate organization, in an attempt to get whitelisted by spam filters which primarily evaluate the RFC5321.MailFrom address. This attack could be paired with an unrelated and non-DMARC RFC5322.From address which is newly minted or otherwise not generally known to be suspicious, So my instinct is that some extension of DMARC to the SMTP address will be beneficial. Doug Foster ---------------------------------------- From: "Chudow, Eric B CIV NSA DSAW (USA)" <eric.b.chudow....@mail.mil> Sent: 11/19/20 5:31 PM To: 'Doug Foster' <fost...@bayviewphysicians.com>, 'IETF DMARC WG' <dmarc@ietf.org> Cc: "'dmarc-cha...@ietf.org'" <dmarc-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [dmarc-ietf] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd: Definition of NP Section 2.7. defines a non-existent domain as "a domain for which there is an NXDOMAIN or NODATA response for A, AAAA, and MX records. This is a broader definition than that in NXDOMAIN [RFC8020]." This should be sufficient for determining that the domain is not intended to be used and therefore could have a more stringent policy applied. The idea of looking for a "mail-enabled domain" based on if an "MX record exists or SPF policy exists" is interesting. Although there may be domains that send email but not receive email and so may not have an MX record. Also, even if there is no SPF record, the domain may still send email, but then it might be held to a more stringent DMARC policy that would further penalize it for not having an SPF record. Also, for the revision of the document I like the way that the three parts of the experiment are now laid out more clearly. My only comment is that the title of Appendix A is overly specific to just one of the experiments and so should be broader. Thanks, Eric Chudow DoD Cybersecurity Mitigations From: Doug Foster <fost...@bayviewphysicians.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 9:46 AM To: 'IETF DMARC WG' <dmarc@ietf.org> Cc: dmarc-cha...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd: Definition of NP I did not see a definition of a "non-existent domain" (the np policy). A definition is needed. To my thinking, the obvious rule should be to query for a NS record for the domain. If the record exists, then the domain owner could create a DMARC record for that domain, or could create a default entry for the domain at the organizational level. If no record exists, it is because the domain owner chose to not create one. However, the DMARC Bis document conflicts strongly with this. In section A.4, it suggest several ways to do a test of this type, then repudiates all of them. NS lookup is not one of the mentioned options. There is a possible second-level policy test for a "mail-enabled domain". I would define that test as "MX record exists or SPF policy exists". That could be an additional option to NP, but should not be a replacement for it. PSD for DMARC clearly intends for the NP policy to be a general solution to a general problem. If there are still objections to it becoming a general solution, this should be addressed soon. Doug Foster From: dmarc [mailto:dmarc-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tim Wicinski Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 1:42 PM To: IETF DMARC WG Cc: dmarc-cha...@ietf.org Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd All During the IESG reviews of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd, there were several issues raised with some of the document. Most of them are editorial but the one big item was the description of the Experiment. The chairs sat down and broke out the experiment section into three separate experiments, and included language on how to capture the data to confirm how the experiment worked. It's enough of a change that we wanted to do a second working group last call to make sure the working group agrees with our changes. The diff of the current version with the previous version is here: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08&url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-09 This starts a *one* week second working group last call for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd Please review the changes and offer up comments to the working group. This working group last call 20 November 2020 Thanks,
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
