ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] RE: I think we can punt the hard stuff as out ofscope.

2007-06-09 09:41:32
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 07:51:51AM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote:

The discovery process itself might provide a solution.  For a message  
to contain a valid email-address, the domain of this address MUST  
locate either an MX or A record.  The DKIM WG could strongly  
recommend A record discovery be deprecated, and that only MX records  
be used for discovery.  Within a few years, it should be possible to  
obsolete use of A record discovery.  An email-address would not be  
valid without an MX record.  This would mean that policy placement  
adjacent to the MX record would be the only location any policy  
record would need to exist.  In this case, the discovery process  
itself indicates whether or not the sub-domain is USED/UNUSED.

Are you referring to the process that some MTAs follow? For example, if
a MTA needs to deliver a message, it is suppose to find a MX for the
right hand side of the email address and deliver it to the eventual A
record (Hector's claim that some MX records return IPs confused me).
Some MTAs, when they don't find an MX record, just lookup an A record
instead and deliver to the resulting IP.

If that's the case, shouldn't the deprecating of A lookups when a MX
lookup fails be brought to the SMTP group?


-- 
:: Jeff Macdonald | Principal Engineer, Messaging Technologies
:: e-Dialog | jmacdonald(_at_)e-dialog(_dot_)com
:: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421 
:: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118 
:: www.e-dialog.com

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>