On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 09:58 -0400, John Leslie wrote:
David Woodhouse <dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org> wrote:
On Sat, 2005-07-02 at 16:48 -0400, John Leslie wrote:
I tend towards the 5xx, because it's a situation which will require
human intervention: the extra SRV record is not in the least likely to
go away by itself.
I also tend towards 5xx because 4xx errors usually require (e.g.)
five days before a human sees them.
TBH I think I'm going to switch to 4xx for _all_ CSA failures. Most of
the failures I've seen so far have been on my own hosts when they've
changed their outgoing IP address and the DNS hasn't yet caught up (or
when I've been too stupid to remember to update the CSA record).
Five days grace would have been good, instead of instant bounces.
Sounds like a good time to agree to disagree. I don't think we can
(or even should) hope to resolve philosophical differences.
How about eliminating the word "permanent":
"
" The CSA spec shall be updated to state that domains MUST NOT publish
" multiple version 1 (priority==1) CSA SRV records for the same HELO
" string. Receiving SMTP servers MAY return an error in response to the
" HELO/EHLO if more than one is found.
This sounds okay.
-Doug