Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Checkdmarc is failing to capture MX records for google #64

Closed
gjones-r7 opened this issue May 24, 2021 · 0 comments
Closed

Checkdmarc is failing to capture MX records for google #64

gjones-r7 opened this issue May 24, 2021 · 0 comments
Labels

Comments

@gjones-r7
Copy link

gjones-r7 commented May 24, 2021

Checkdmarc is looking up PTR records on IPs associated with found MX records. Anything using Google name servers is currently failing to capture the MX IPs. See:

  checkdmarc google.com -n 8.8.8.8
  ...
  "mx": {
    "hosts": [],
    "error": "All nameservers failed to answer the query 26.138.250.142.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR: Server 8.8.8.8 UDP port 53 answered SERVFAIL"
  },
  ...

Digging into this more, you can see what's happening with the following dig commands:

dig @8.8.8.8 MX google.com
...
google.com.		299	IN	MX	1 aspmx.l.google.com.
...

Then, I dig on aspmx:

dig @8.8.8.8 aspmx.l.google.com
...
aspmx.l.google.com.	292	IN	A	142.250.138.27
...

Then, do a PTR lookup on that (because for some reason checkdmarc is doing that):

dig @8.8.8.8 -x 142.250.138.27
...
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 11299
...

This prompts a few questions:

  • Why does checkdmarc need to do PTR lookups on MX IPs?
  • Is there any way to prevent checkdmarc from doing these PTR lookups?
  • If the PTR lookups are helpful to some people, can it fail more gracefully so that we at least get the MX hostnames and IPs?

Btw, using other nameservers produces the same issue. Google clearly needs to fix something on their end, but receiving mail should work just fine for Google despite these PTR SERVFAILs on their MX IPs, so I think it makes sense to return the relevant data in checkdmarc too.

seanthegeek added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 4, 2023
- Ignore case and whitespace when parsing DMARC and BIMI key=value pairs (Closes [#75](#75))
- Handle missing `PTR` records more gracefully (Closes [#64](#64))
- reindent DMARC `fo` tag values now result in a warning instead of a syntax error (Closes [#71](#71))
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants