Network Working Group M. Stumpf
Internet-Draft S. Hoehne
Expires: August 15, 2004 SpaceNet AG
February 15, 2004
Marking Mail Transfer Agents in Reverse DNS with TXT RRs
draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark-01
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 15, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
In contrast to other more extensive approaches to deal with
unsolicited email, commonly called "spam", this memo discusses a very
simple authentication scheme. It uses marking of hosts in reverse DNS
(in-addr.arpa zone) to allow the receiving mail transfer agents to
decide whether the connecting (sending) host is a designated mail
transfer agent (MTA) or not.
Despite being a weaker scheme than most of the other proposals
currently discussed, it can reduce the amount of spam and viruses/
worms significantly and has the advantage that it can be implemented
based on existing and well-established Internet technology like DNS
without any changes to that technology.
Stumpf & Hoehne Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Marking MTAs in Reverse DNS February 2004
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. PROPOSAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 Defining A Well Known Subdomain for the Reverse DNS Tree . . 5
2.2 Service Specific Resource Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1 Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2 Hints for Implementors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 Contact Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.1 Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.2 Hints for Implementors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4 Example Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. EFFECTS ON EXISTING MAIL INFRASTRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1 Unmarked Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2 Local Mail Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3 Roaming Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4 IPv6 Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. EXPANDING THIS PROPOSAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. REGISTRATION OF A NEW DNS RR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1 Why We Do Not Propose a New DNS RR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2 Into the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. IANA CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 16
Stumpf & Hoehne Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Marking MTAs in Reverse DNS February 2004
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Motivation
The problem with spam and viruses/worms has increased and changed a
lot during the last years. In the beginning, distributing unsolicited
email was accomplished by abusing relay open mailservers [RFC2505].
Spread of viruses needed humans passing on infected data. The
situation today shows worms coming packed with their own SMTP
modules, utilizing address books and scanning documents for new
addresses and therefore victims. A lot of worms install backdoors and
(enable) proxy servers. These infected hosts are afterwards abused by
spammers to send unsolicited email.
With the growing adoption of DSL techniques, a significant part of
the Internet hosts shifted to poorly maintained workstations in
homes. Permanently connected to the Internet, these hosts form an
easy and "paying" prey for worms and abusers. Not only in homes, also
in companies the number of poorly maintained hosts is growing.
History and viruses like VBS/LoveLet class or worms like CodeRed and
Nimda and the zillions of open proxy servers show, we cannot count on
users or administrators to get the problems fixed.
However, what the administrators can decide proactively is whether a
certain host, represented by its IP address, is meant to be a MTA
that should have the ability to talk to other MTAs across the
Internet. Most - if not all - of the proxy servers or workstations do
not need to have this ability.
We suggest a mechanism to enable the administrator to mark IP
addresses in the Domain Name System [RFC1034], [RFC1035] with labels
meaning
o "This IP address is assigned to a MTA that is intended to send
messages across the Internet"
o "This IP address does not host a MTA, do not accept emails from
that IP address."
and therefore give receiving MTAs a hint as whether to accept
messages from the sending MTA or not.
Stumpf & Hoehne Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Marking MTAs in Reverse DNS February 2004
This document describes such a mechanism that
o is easy, fast and cheap to deploy and implement,
o uses existing Internet technology without modification and without
breaking it or the need for workarounds
While this document specializes on SMTP the technique used in this
proposal is not limited to the SMTP, but can be adopted by any
service and is easily extensible.
1.2 Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
"RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", and "MAY" in this document are to
be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119].
Stumpf & Hoehne Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Marking MTAs in Reverse DNS February 2004
2. PROPOSAL
2.1 Defining A Well Known Subdomain for the Reverse DNS Tree
Storing arbitrary string attributes in the Domain Name System
[RFC1464] is a technique described and used at least since 1993. One
solution that we took into consideration has been to store string
attributes like "MTA=1" or "MTA=0" at the same level as PTR records.
However this method does not support specific queries and has a high
overhead for parsing the responses, is prone to naming collisions and
will trigger errors and problems in old implementations of DNS
servers with the 512 byte size limit.
Thus we propose expanding the reverse DNS tree with a subdomain with
the well known name
_srv
2.2 Service Specific Resource Records
2.2.1 Terms and Definitions
Within the above "_srv" subdomain there will be another subdomain
named after the service for which the specific records will be
defined. For SMTP the name of the subdomain will be
_smtp
The symbolic name of the desired service is the same as defined in
Assigned Numbers [RFC3232] or locally. An underscore (_) is prepended
to the service identifier to avoid collisions with DNS labels that
occur in nature. The service name is case insensitive. Readers
familiar with RFC2782 [RFC2782] are already accustomed to that naming
scheme.
Whether SMTP connections are to be allowed/or disallowed from that
host is specified by a TXT record within the service subdomain for
the entry
_perm
The name "_perm" is case insensitive.
The value of the TXT record will be either "1" or "0":
Stumpf & Hoehne Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Marking MTAs in Reverse DNS February 2004
1 - (MTA=yes) indicates that the connection is originating from an
IP address that is intended to be a MTA talking to other MTAs
across the public Internet and that the message SHOULD be
accepted.
0 - (MTA=no) indicates that the IP address of the sending
communication partner is NOT meant to be a MTA and that messages
SHOULD NOT be accepted from that connection, unless successful
authentification via other methods (e.g. ODMR [RFC2645]) advise
the contrary.
2.2.2 Hints for Implementors
o The "_perm" record for a given service MUST be unique for a given
IP address within the "_smtp" subdomain. In the case of multiple
contradictory records they MUST be treated as one record having
the value 0 (MTA=no).
o If the value of the resource record is other than "1" (MTA=yes) or
"0" (MTA=no) the value MUST be treated as "0" (MTA=no).
o If there are multiple TXT resource records for one service with
identical values implementors SHOULD treat them as one record.
2.3 Contact Information
2.3.1 Terms and Definitions
The contact information provides automatic notification of
administrators, if hosts within their responsibility get abused or
infected by viruses.
Currently there is no easy way to get information about contacts for
a given IP address. There are a lot of different sources, where the
best are probably the whois databases of the various (Regional
Internet Registries (RIR) like ARIN, RIPE, APNIC or LACNIC. However,
there is no common agreed upon format for abuse contacts, and for
some allocations, referrals have to be followed to other registries
like BRNIC or KRNIC, that again use different record formats.
An easy way to specify contact information for a given IP address is
to use the Responsible Person (RP) resource record as defined in RFC
1183 [RFC1183].
Stumpf & Hoehne Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Marking MTAs in Reverse DNS February 2004
Another use of an email address provided with the contact information
is the possibility for a MTA to customize the error message
[RFC2821], [RFC1893] like in
550-5.7.1 Message rejected. Sender is not labelled a valid MTA.
550 5.7.1 Please contact <abuse@example.com>.
where "abuse@example.com" is derived from the information stored in
the RP records.
The RP resource records SHOULD be inserted into the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone
at the same level as the PTR records for reverse DNS.
However, there may be more than one contact address for various
services involved, so service specific contact information may also
be provided at the service subdomain level.
2.3.2 Hints for Implementors
o Programs utilizing these records should first query for RP records
along with the service subdomain and if that fails try again and
query for RP records at the PTR level.
o More than one RP resource record may be specified. It is up to the
reporting program or person to choose a random contact to notify
or send notification to all of them.
2.4 Example Records
Some examples, how records might look like in BIND syntax:
$ORIGIN 0.0.10.in-addr.arpa.
1 IN PTR mail.example.com.
_perm._smtp._srv.1 IN TXT "1"
_smtp._srv.1 IN RP abuse.example.com. .
2 IN PTR www.example.com.
2 IN RP abuse.example.com. .
_perm._smtp._srv.2 IN TXT "0"
_smtp._srv.2 IN RP spam.example.com. .
Stumpf & Hoehne Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Marking MTAs in Reverse DNS February 2004
3. EFFECTS ON EXISTING MAIL INFRASTRUCTURE
One of the main goals of this proposal has been to limit the impact
on existing Internet infrastructure as much as possible.
Putting this proposal in effect will not break existing
infrastructure or widely used mechanisms like gatewaying, forwarding
and (authenticated) relaying of emails
3.1 Unmarked Addresses
Each receiving MTA is free to decide how to classify connections from
IP addresses without the marks as defined in this document.
However, as a general guideline, we propose a grace period of six
months after publication of this document, where missing marks are to
be treated with a default of "MTA=yes" and after the grace period
missing marks are to be treated as "MTA=no".
Implementors are asked to provide a mechanism for the administrator
to easily specify a default behavior for unmarked IP addresses.
3.2 Local Mail Clients
MTAs implementing the policy defined in this document should take
care to provide mechanisms for the administrators to easily specify a
list of "local addresses" which use the receiving MTA as an outgoing
relay. The MTA will accept messages from those IP addresses despite
not being marked as "MTA=no".
3.3 Roaming Users
Typically, roaming users or local users from dialin/dynamic IP
addresses have "MTA=no" set on the connection to the receiving MTA.
The ODMR [RFC2645] extension to the SMTP protocol [RFC2821] specifies
a way for roaming users to authenticate themselves to the receiving
MTA and validate the connection.
Authenticated connections must be accepted, even when the connecting
IP address is marked as "MTA=no".
Implementors must take care not to reject connections before the
initiator of the connection had the chance to authenticate himself.
3.4 IPv6 Compatibility
This proposal is fully compatible with IPv6. The same TXT and RP RRs
and lookup mechanisms can be applied to the "ip6.arpa" zone as well.
Stumpf & Hoehne Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Marking MTAs in Reverse DNS February 2004
4. EXPANDING THIS PROPOSAL
This proposal concentrates on labelling SMTP servers. However the
principle is generic and can be used for other services, too.
Other entries in the service subdomain like e.g. "_key" can be used
to store the public key the MTA at that IP address uses for
authentication or signing of messages.
Stumpf & Hoehne Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Marking MTAs in Reverse DNS February 2004
5. REGISTRATION OF A NEW DNS RR
5.1 Why We Do Not Propose a New DNS RR
The problem with a new DNS RR (and one reason why we try to avoid it)
is the resulting need to modify all kinds of DNS software. DNS
servers, DNS resolvers and - probably the strongest argument against
- ISP management software. Internet Service Providers do not edit
zone files with an editor. They have a database and a GUI of some
sort that is capable handling all kinds of "well known" RRs.
We had quick, easy and cheap adoption in mind and if all ISP
management software has to be changed to make use of the new RR, it
will either take a long time or will never happen. TXT and RP records
are well understood for years and our approach is even backed up by a
RFC [RFC2821].
5.2 Into the Future
Should the future show that TXT RRs should be better substituted by a
new DNS RR to carry the labels, we are all for it. But for now
something has to happen, and it is better to happen quick.
Stumpf & Hoehne Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Marking MTAs in Reverse DNS February 2004
6. IANA CONSIDERATIONS
The IANA already maintains the registry for service names [RFC3232]
that are used to name the service subdomain proposed. No other IANA
services are required by this document.
Stumpf & Hoehne Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Marking MTAs in Reverse DNS February 2004
7. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS
The authors believe that this specification does not cause any new
security problems.
The same security issues apply as to other DNS based services.
Probably the worst case scenario is hijacking of a part of the
reverse DNS zone and modification of the special TXT record defined
in this document to "MTA=no" to block email sending capabilities for
hosts with that IP addresses.
Stumpf & Hoehne Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Marking MTAs in Reverse DNS February 2004
References
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC1101] Mockapetris, P., "DNS encoding of network names and other
types", RFC 1101, April 1989.
[RFC1183] Everhart, C., Mamakos, L., Ullmann, R. and P. Mockapetris,
"New DNS RR Definitions", RFC 1183, October 1990.
[RFC1464] Rosenbaum, R., "Using the Domain Name System To Store
Arbitrary String Attributes", RFC 1464, May 1993.
[RFC1630] Berners-Lee, T., "Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW: A
Unifying Syntax for the Expression of Names and Addresses
of Objects on the Network as used in the World-Wide Web",
RFC 1630, June 1994.
[RFC1738] Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L. and M. McCahill, "Uniform
Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, December 1994.
[RFC1893] Vaudreuil, G., "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes", RFC
1893, January 1996.
[RFC1912] Barr, D., "Common DNS Operational and Configuration
Errors", RFC 1912, February 1996.
[RFC2168] Daniel, R. and M. Mealling, "Resolution of Uniform
Resource Identifiers using the Domain Name System", RFC
2168, June 1997.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2317] Eidnes, H., de Groot, G. and P. Vixie, "Classless
IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation", BCP 20, RFC 2317, March 1998.
[RFC2396] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396,
August 1998.
[RFC2505] Lindberg, G., "Anti-Spam Recommendations for SMTP MTAs",
BCP 30, RFC 2505, February 1999.
Stumpf & Hoehne Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Marking MTAs in Reverse DNS February 2004
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
June 1999.
[RFC2645] Gellens, R., "ON-DEMAND MAIL RELAY (ODMR) SMTP with
Dynamic IP Addresses", RFC 2645, August 1999.
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P. and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
February 2000.
[RFC2821] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821,
April 2001.
[RFC3232] Reynolds, J., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by
an On-line Database", RFC 3232, January 2002.
[RFC3305] Mealling, M. and R. Denenberg, "Report from the Joint W3C/
IETF URI Planning Interest Group: Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URIs), URLs, and Uniform Resource Names
(URNs): Clarifications and Recommendations", RFC 3305,
August 2002.
Authors' Addresses
Markus Stumpf
SpaceNet AG
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14
Muenchen, 80807
DE
Phone: +49 89 32356-0
Fax: +49 89 32356-299
EMail: maex-rfc@space.net
URI: http://www.space.net/
Steff Hoehne
SpaceNet AG
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14
Muenchen, 80807
DE
Phone: +49 89 32356-0
Fax: +49 89 32356-299
EMail: steff-rfc@space.net
URI: http://www.space.net/
Stumpf & Hoehne Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Marking MTAs in Reverse DNS February 2004
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledges the contributions of: Christian
Brunner and Sebastian von Bomhard, Elmar Bartel for some good hints
that should plate our English, Scott Nelson for directing us towards
RFC1464 [RFC1464] and all the members of the RIPE Antispam list, the
IRTF ASRG group and a lot of our net.friends for their comments and
input.
A big 'Thank You' goes also to Marshal T. Rose for the wonderful
xml2rfc
Stumpf & Hoehne Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Marking MTAs in Reverse DNS February 2004
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
Stumpf & Hoehne Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Marking MTAs in Reverse DNS February 2004
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Stumpf & Hoehne Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 17]