ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - LMAP - Latest version of the LMAP discussion paper

2003-12-09 15:26:26
http://www.striker.ottawa.on.ca/~aland/draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-00.txt

Minor wording issues, second to last paragraph in 1.1:

   Note that recipients should also publish that they use/enforce LMAP.
   Receiving mail transport agents using protocols with the ability to
   advertise capabilities should advertise a capability to the sender
   that informs the that the sender that the receiver will check the
                    ^^^^^^^^^

I think "that informs the sender" or more simply "informing the sender"


   incoming IP address with LMAP.  It is to the advantage of all parties
   for a sender that will not be able to pass LMAP authentication to be
   able to discover the fact as early as possible and abort the
   transmission.

The last sentence is very hard to wrap my head around, perhaps partly
because "pass" initially makes me think "transmit" and not "pass vs
fail".  Maybe rearranging would help:

   If LMAP authentication is required by the receiver, it is to the
   benefit of all parties if a non-conforming sender can discover that
   fact early on and abort the transmission.

Sorry if that's too nit-picky, but I ran into a mental stop there.  :-)

mm


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg