Bruce Lilly wrote:
That would be a syntax error.
Weird language, but now I'm warned.
The rule in this case is in the RFC 2026 requirements for
advancement to draft, which includes the removal of unused
Both repetition and optional are useful, only combining these
beasts is odd. Or rather their priority if I got this finally
2234 still permits prose instead of a formal specification.
If it's used to import rules or instead of a "TBD" it's okay.
USEFOR has gone so far down a rathole as to be unsalvageable
The last usefor-03 draft was very close to ready from my
POV. Otherwise I intend to salvage at least its msg-id
syntax with an "updates: 1036, 2822", if you're interested I
can post it here.
Last I heard, the current and past USEFOR Chairs were adamant
that the USEFOR WG has no authority to "update" 2822.
Sure, but I've the authority to submit this as I-D if USEFOR is
closed. And for obvious reasons any USEFOR msg-id will be the
only existing msg-id in practice (= least common denominator).
draft-hutzler-spamops-04, a perfectly sane future BCP.
No, it and many others will do nothing to curtail spam, but
will adversely affect legitimate mobile users.
I disagree. SMTP has to be fixed, and it will be fixed. And
of course strategies like blocking open relays have adversely
affected some legit users, as we've seen it was also no FUSSP.
The important point is that it _can_ be fixed without killing
or replacing SMTP completely.
for all host names (FQDNs) under your control you are free
to publish which IPs they use if they say HELO in an SMTP
No, because IP addresses are unpredictable
For e.g. xyzzy.dnsalias.org I could say "a" = "whatver its IPs
are when you check it in a SMTP session", or "mx" = "whatever
the IP(s) of its MX(s) are", etc. As I said, it works like a
charm, and of course the IPs of mailouts are generally static.
(airport lounges, cafes, etc.).
You can use Webmail. You can use the MSA of your provider.
You can even use the airport-smart-host if that beast accepts
error messages for what you sent (maybe forwarding it later to
you). If that's not good enough for you I recommend that you
don't publish a "sender policy".
It's a voluntary system, and obviously you don't get the idea
without 100,000 bounces caused by forgeries => no problem, it's
only important that spammers and the secondary victims get it.