Greg Connor wrote:
It would be useful for those maintaining domains and networks
to be able to specify that individual hosts or nodes are authorized
to act as MTAs for messages sent from those domains or networks.
This working group will develop a DNS-based mechanism for
storing and distributing information associated with that
The primary current use case for this facility is to allow
MTAs to confirm that peer MTAs' actions are authorized by
specific domains or networks.
NOTHING I have seen so far suggests that the methods used for 2821 and
2822 validation are incompatible, ESPECIALLY when we are already
limiting ourselves to "a DNS-based mechanism... to specify that
individual hosts or nodes are authorized to act as MTAs for messages
sent from those domains or networks" Yes, there are differences here
and there, but the fundamental concept is the same.
YES this will be HARD work. So let's get to it. Are people just afraid
of the hard work it takes to iron out a common system? Or are we all
quibbling over differences because our pet proposals work better for one
thing than the other? Who can tell me a good reason why we shouldn't
accept Andy's proposal and move on?
I accepted Andy's proposal with one question - in order to support both
2821 and 2822 checking on the same set of data, how will extensibility
for that be done?
Yakov Shafranovich / asrg <at> shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research <at> solidmatrix.com
"Some lies are easier to believe than the truth" (Dune)