A brief history of TXT Records

txt
When the Domain Name System was designed thirty years ago the concept behind it was pretty simple. It’s mostly just a distributed database that lets you map hostname / query-type pairs to values.
If you want to know the IP address of cnn.com, you look up {cnn.com, A} and get back a couple of IP addresses. If you want to know where to send mail for aol.com users, you look up {aol.com, MX} and you get a set of four hostname / preference pairs back. If you want to know the hostname for the IP address 206.190.36.45 you look up {45.36.190.206.in-addr.arpa, PTR} and get a hostname back.
There’s a well-defined meaning to each of those query types  – A is for IP addresses, MX is for mailservers, PTR is for hostnames – and that was always the intent for how DNS should work.
When DNS was first standardized, though, there was one query type that didn’t really have any semantic meaning:

TXT RRs are used to hold descriptive text. The semantics of the text depends on the domain where it is found.

TXT records didn’t really have a use. Some domain owners used them to provide their contact information for the domain, and there were some funny messages scattered around, but that was about it.
Around the year 2000 email people started thinking about publishing data in the DNS. Email people are not the same as DNS people. To a DNS person the obviously correct way to do that would be to define a new query type, persuade people to agree on that definition and then make it a standard by publishing an RFC.
But email people have a long history of piling standards on top of other standards and deploying ad-hoc approaches (e.g. X-Headers, Uuencoding, PGP encapsulation and ascii armoring) without more than the bare minimum of agreement on the right way to do things. That approach helps with fast-yet-gradual deployment of new solutions, but also leads to a certain impatience with the bureaucracy of an actual standards development process.
“Just stick it in a TXT record!” became the rallying cry.
SPF was the first widely deployed protocol to do that. There was an attempt to migrate SPF from using TXT records to using a dedicated SPF record type, but given the deployed base of users already using TXT records it was doomed to failure.
Whenever someone is rolling out a new protocol that needs a domain owner to publish something – whether it’s something fairly standardized or pretty much ad-hoc – they tend to reach for a TXT record.
Some more things you need to know about TXT records on Monday.

Pattern matching primates
TXTing

Related Posts

Troubleshooting tools

There have been a number of comments on my post about Hotmail moving to SPF authentication having to do with troubleshooting authentication failures. I have been helping clients troubleshoot these issues, and am able to take on new clients to solve authentication problems. Contact me for more information.
Of course, many of these issues can be solved with access to the right tools. Steve’s been working on a number of tools that may help the troubleshooting process and we’ve recently launched them on Emailstuff.org. The website itself contains a number of DNS and data related tools we use for investigations and thought we’d share with the public at large.
One of the really useful tools is the SPF record expander. Plug in any domain, like google.com, and see what IP addresses they authorize to send mail.

Read More

DMARC: an authentication framework

A new email industry group was announced this morning. DMARC is a group of industry participants, including large senders, large receivers and relevant intermediaries working on a framework to reduce the harm from phishing.
DMARC is working on a standard to allow senders to publish sending policies and receivers to act on those policies. Currently, senders who want receivers to not deliver unauthenticated email have to negotiate private agreements with the ISPs to make that happen. This is a way to expand the existing programs. Without a published standard, the overhead in managing individual agreements would quickly become prohibitive.
It is an anti-phishing technique built on top of current authentication processes. This is the “next step” in the process and one that most people involved in the authentication process were anticipating and planning for. I’m glad to see so many big players participating.
 

Read More

Office365/EOP IPv6 changes starting today

Terry Zink at Microsoft posted earlier this week that Office365/Exchange Online Protection will have a significant change this week. Office365 uses Exchange Online Protection (EOP) for spam filtering and email protection. One of the requirements to send to EOP over IPv6 is to have the email authenticated with either SPF or DKIM.  If the mail sent to Office365/EOP over IPv6 is not authenticated with SPF or DKIM, EOP would reject the message with a 554 hard bounce message.  Most mail servers accept the 554 status code and would not retry the message.  After multiple 5xx hard bounces to an email address, many mail servers would unsubscribe the user from future email campaigns.  The update starting today April 24, will change the error status code for unauthenticated mail to EOP from a 554 hard bounce to a 450 soft bounce and a RFC-compliant and properly configured mail server would then retry the message.
Prior to April 24, 2015, EOP responds to unauthenticated mail with a status code of: “554 5.7.26 Service Unavailable, message sent over IPv6 must pass either SPF or DKIM validation”.

Read More