On Oct 14, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:38, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Having said that, our job for now is to figure out whether to include
this requirement or not for SSP, and your mail isn't entirely
clear as
to whether you think SSP needs to support that requirement.
I'm ambivalent. I think it [that a domain claims to send no mail]
is a fact
that would significantly aid receivers in evaluating received
mail. I don't
know that it needs to be defined here.
It's a pretty rare case. I think the main
reason it keeps coming up is that it's the only case in which a sender
domain can make a statement that will work reliably (in either SPF
or SSP), so is used as the "But look! It can work in this case!" poster
child to support the need for that sort of protocol, rather than because
many people actually need the functionality (either as senders or
recipients).
I think there is some harm in every e-mail identity related protocol
re-inventing how to express 'sends no mail'. I think it would be
better to
do it once. Given that there is one method that is standardized at
least at
the experimental level, in theory I think it's better not to try
and reinvent
the wheel here. In practice, I understand that would open a rather
large can
of worms.
Just to be clear, I was suggesting using a TXT record with the sting
literal 'v=spf1 -all' in it and not suggesting trying to drag the
entire
protocol along.
If you do that, you're dragging the whole SPF protocol along, whether
you mean to or not, for recipients at least (unless I'm
misunderstanding,
which is perfectly possible).
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html