On 2/5/2010 12:39 PM, Chris Lewis wrote:
2. Sub-domain
...
The address to be used is really an 'attribute' of the main domain,
and the underscore convention has developed as a way of defining
additional attributes for a domain name. In addition, the naming
convention does not run the risk of colliding with an existing use of
sub-domains.
Problem with main domain is trying to figure out what it is, and it may
not be the registered name. east.sun.com and west.sun.com may have
entirely separate infrastructures even if you could derive "sun.com"
from "blat.for.be.sun.com". So, it should at worst, be related to the
naming of the infrastructure you actually use.
Sorry for being confusing. I didn't mean to invoke the long-standing issue of
the 'core' domain for an organization.
I merely meant the domain name minus its 'attribute' qualifier. For the
proposal you guys are making, that would be /all/ of the domain name of the
incoming host.
Just to check: The choice between using an A or an MX is an
optimization, rather than strategic, yes? That is, either is
sufficient to the task, so a debate is about better?
There are some specific technical advantages to an A for existance
(enable TiS button), and MX for routing (where submission server sends
it). Doing it that way around minimizes extra work, eg: many MUAs might
not _have_ MX lookup code, but you know they have to have A lookup, so
"A" is more convenient for what the MUA needs to do (light up the TiS
button). The MX makes MTA routing work perfectly sanely. The A record
doesn't even have to point at anything useful, because the MUA doesn't
have to go there (and may not be able to), just exist.
I missed the fact that this was merely a flag and that the IP Address wasn't
relevant.
In that case, this should be a TXT record.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg