At 11:11 AM 6/29/2003 -0400, Richard Rognlie wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 02:55:33PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
> At 01:21 PM 6/28/2003 -0400, Raymond S Brand wrote:
>
> >The June 24 DRIP document has a problem with the use of DNS
> >wildcard records. Attached is an updated DRIP document and
> >a diff of the important changes between the two documents.
> >[..]
> >
> > The Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol, DRIP, is a method for domain
> > name owners to specify the IP addresses that are authorized to relay
> > mail as a domain name in the SMTP HELO and EHLO commands. The
> > protocol provides a method for server MTAs to reject SMTP connections
> > from IP addresses not authorized to use the domain name given in the
> > SMTP HELO and EHLO commands.
> >[..]
>
> How is this proposal different from RMX proposal by Hadmut Danisch
> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-02.txt) and
> the various other rDNS proposals (see Mike Rubel's page at
> http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rmx_records/).
RMX (et al) deal with the envelope from address. This proposal has
nothing to do with the envelope. It is an attempt to sanitize the
hostname specified as the HELO/EHLO when connecting to a remote
MTA.
[..]
Dealing with the return envelope has its own problems (DSN messages with
empty MAIL FROM <>) so it seems that dealing with the HELO/EHLO is better.
BUT, the bottom line is that both proposals are DNS based and propose
additional DNS records. Whether the filtering is done on HELO/EHLO level or
return envelope is something to be left to the implementators. Both
proposals are basically the same - they are mandating DNS records.
Yakov
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg