On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:57:32 -0000, Douglas Otis <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
wrote:
On Feb 12, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
the SSP draft should mandate publishing MX records whenever an SSP
record is also published.
-1
SSP (or ASP) have no business to "mandate" MX records, that's not their
job. MX records are not required for (2)821(bis) interoperability, and
RFC 2119 has a very clear policy about arbitrary MUSTard.
The MUST only occurs in conjunction with publishing SSP records. This
does not mandate publishing of MX records when SSP is not used.
Exactly. An SSP record is published using the DNS system. One of the
functions of the SSP draft is to specify the precise means of such
publication.
So there is no reason why it should not say "An SSP record MUST NOT be
published unless there also exists a corresponfing MX record". So if
someone publishes one contary to that, then it is not a valid SSP record,
and hence may be ignored by evaluators.
I son't see any problem with doing that, provided of course that the
technical benefits warrant it.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html