Thus spake Dave Crocker (dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net) [06/05/03 11:57]:
I used the word "conceptually". Your response is mostly about details.
If by 'conceptually' you mean 'they both identify something', then I agree.
From an architectural standpoing, both proposals seek to obtain a
small bit of validation from the sending host, and then extend the
semantics of that validation far beyond what is technically warranted.
My point was simply that comparing RMX to IDENT is not a valid comparison.
Akin to comparing a bicycle to a car. Both are methods of transportation,
but similarities end there (and both have tires and both use energy and ...)
I have been watching this debate, and I have yet to see a solid explanation
as to why you believe usage of RMX goes far beyone what is technically
warranted. The previous can't-send-hotmail-not-through-hotmail argument is
weak yet still valid, but I don't see what leaping assumptions I am making
if the sender does or doesn't have an RMX record.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg