david nicol <davidnicol(_at_)pay2send(_dot_)com> wrote:
Okay, DRIP
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-brand-drip-01.txt
is very similar; however instead of
..
OMX would have example.com list
omx.m.example.com IN A 192.0.2.10
omx.m.example.com IN A 192.0.2.11
Which is overkill. The recipients of a message want to know if a
particular IP is marked as "sending MX". Forcing the recipient to
wade through tons of unwanted information is inefficient.
This was my preference:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fecyk-dsprotocol-02.txt
It appears to have expired, though.
"designated senders" are looked up by reverse IP, which is simple to
configure in DNS, and allows simple wildcarding for the "third-party
relaying" issue. Further, the response can be a TXT record, with
additional consent information.
The other benefit is that when the recipient MTA asks "is this IP
permitted to send messages as your domain?", then the response is
"yes", or "no", or "unknown". This response is much more helpful than
most similar proposals, which involve responding with huge amounts of
information.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg