David Woodhouse <dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org> wrote:
On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 14:55 -0400, John Leslie wrote:
I understand not wishing to duplicate this; but it seems to me you're
taking a far greater risk by trusting an external organization to
determine the basis for _your_ reputation. It doesn't strike me as a
good practice to do this.
So maybe I should list 'imladris.demon.co.uk' as authorised but _not_
authenticated, while the IP address which actually belong to me would be
listed as authenticated.
That strikes me as a considerably more sane thing to want to advertise.
I couldn't do that without multiple SRV records though.
Indeed.
However, in considering the "authorized but not authenticated" case,
we despaired of finding any way a receiving SMTP server "MUST" interpret
it.
I seriously question whether this case is worth the effort...
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>