> People configure things similar to https://mxtoolbox.com/dmarc/dmarc-setup-cname instructions (which I find in conflict with RFC1034).

I don't think they're advising anyone create both a CNAME and TXT at the same label - but it certainly looks like that from the weird screenshot at step 5 (which doesn't match the text).

I think it's mistakenly a mish-mash of two different guides, one for 'how to use a CNAME to point to a third party DMARC service entirely' and one for 'how to host the DMARC record yourself' (irrespective of where the RUA goes).

▲

bwblabs 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not sure, but we're seeing this specifically with _dmarc CNAMEing to '.hosted.dmarc-report.com' together with a TXT record type, also see this discussion users asking for this at deSEC: https://talk.desec.io/t/cannot-create-cname-and-txt-record-f...

My main point was however that it's really not okay that CloudFlare allows setting up other record types (e.g. TXT, but basically any) next to a CNAME.

	▲	ycombiredd an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yes. This type of behavior was what I was referring to in an earlier comment mentioning flashbacks to seeing logs from named filled with "cannot have cname and other data", and slapping my forehead asking "who keeps doing this?", in the days when editing files by hand was the norm. And then, of course having repeats of this feeling as tools were built, automations became increasingly common, and large service providers "standardized" interfaces (ostensibly to ensure correctness) allowing or even encouraging creation of bad zone configurations. The more things change, the more things stay the same. :-)