I’ve seen CNAME for DMARC deployed frequently and without issue. This should be completely transparent to most implementations, as whether the record is TXT or CNAME, the same answer should be retrieved from DNS.
Let’s not conflate implementation issues with problems in the spec, although I agree the spec should make it clear that CNAME is usable here. I’ll poke the opendmarc bug on a different list. Seth, with multiple hats On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 05:47 Tõnu Tammer <[email protected]> wrote: > Current RFC does not mention CNAME and while, in theory, it should work, > we have seen that it does not always do so. Therefore, I would also > support explicitly mentioning CNAME in the RFC. > > It is true that people can make mistakes but people already make typos > and other mistakes but having CNAME added to RFC would help in case of > some service providers are managing the DMARC via CNAME. > > Tõnu > CERT-EE > > On 02.03.2021 14:09, jbouwh wrote: > > L.S. > > I would suggest update the DMARC standard make explicit how CNAME can > > be used or not. > > Beside of that, the opendmarc software should address this as a bug in > > some way. Their opendmarc-check tool shows the correct policy that > > fails from the opendmarc service when used on a CNAME-ed DMARC policy. > > The usecase I have seen failing only was one CNAME level deep. > > The failing mechanism in opendmarc for fetching the DMARC policy now > > seems to leed leads to a 'none' policy. > > > > Regards, Jan > > > > Douglas Foster schreef op 2021-03-02 12:51: > >> Because CNAME usage was not mentioned in the previous DMARC document, > >> existing implementations may not have tested this configuration. For > >> the policy publishing organization, this increases the possibility > >> that some recipients may treat the mail as not protected by DMARC. > >> As with any deployment issue, the publishing organization has no > >> reliable way to know if the deployment of DMARC implementations with > >> full CNAME support is "essentially complete". This uncertainty may be > >> acceptable for some organizations, but may be an obstacle for others, > >> depending on their motivations for implementing DMARC. > >> > >> On the implementation side, the use of CNAME will introduce the > >> possibility of referral errors, which may or may not require > >> mentioning in the DMARC specification, since such issues have probably > >> been addressed in core DNS documents. The issues that come to mind > >> are: > >> CNAME referrals to non-existent names > >> Nested CNAME referrals (what depth is allowed?) > >> CNAME referrals that produce loops or excessive nesting depth. > >> > >> DF > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 6:12 AM Tim Wicinski <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Using a CNAME at _dmarc.example should not be a problem, as long as > >>> > >>> the CNAME target is a TXT record. The DNS resolver functions should > >>> > >>> should handle this seamlessly. This does sound like a vendor > >>> software > >>> problem. > >>> > >>> I am aware of DKIM records being deployed using CNAMEs pointing to a > >>> TXT record target. > >>> Has anyone seen the above error condition when testing DKIM records? > >>> > >>> > >>> This definitely sounds like an issue with the software. > >>> > >>> Nobody should shy away from publishing DMARC records that are CNAMEs > >>> to DMARC > >>> TXT records elsewhere. Using this design should be strongly > >>> encouraged. > >>> > >>> tim _______________________________________________ > >>> dmarc mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > >> _______________________________________________ > >> dmarc mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dmarc mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > > -- > Tõnu Tammer > CERT-EE juht / Executive Director of CERT-EE > Riigi Infosüsteemi Amet / Estonian Information System Authority > > Email: [email protected] > Mobile: +372 53 284 054 > Web: https://cert.ee > > PGP:0x77A8997 / 9477 6B86 6A1E 849B C456 46D6 9CA8 9E41 77A8 997B > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > -- *Seth Blank* | VP, Product *e:* [email protected] *p:* 415.273.8818 ` This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
