A friend with a small local mail server that ONLY sent out good,
legitimate mail was blocked by almost everyone for lack of an MX record.
Old days are gone.
thanks
Bill Oxley
Messaging Engineer
Cox Communications
404-847-6397
-----Original Message-----
From: Hector Santos [mailto:hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 8:16 AM
To: Douglas Otis
Cc: Oxley, Bill (CCI-Atlanta); IETF DKIM WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] RE: I think we can punt the hard stuff as out
ofscope.
Douglas Otis wrote:
A single policy record placed adjacent to the domain's MX record could
be sufficient. This would eliminate domain transversals or wildcard
search mechanisms. However, this approach creates a need to obsolete
the use of just A records as an SMTP server discovery/confirmation
method. Once an A record discovery/confirmation has been obsoleted,
then messages might not be accepted when the email-address domain is
not
confirmed by the existence of an MX record.
Doug,
The MX/CNAME/A discovery process is long established process and part of
the SMTP standard for millions of systems world wide, not just the
Fortune 10, 500, 1000 or 10,000, and it includes legitimate systems with
no MX records but with a CNAME or A record.
And you want to change this long established methodology for SSP
purposes?
You're kidding right?
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html