On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 07:05:17 -0000, Hector Santos
<hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Doug, for the record, I was more against the MX lookup MUST in the SSP
record discovery setup. IMO, I prefer it to be a MAY or even a SHOULD
only because historically it was not a requirement and therefore highly
possible that the MX did not exist.
However, having an MX record has always been regarded as Best Practice (as
opposed to relying on just a naked A record). So all we are now saying is
that if you are now proposing to publish SSP, then you MUST henceforth
start accepting that Best Practice by publishing an MX as well. If you are
not prepared to do that, then Do Not publish an SSP.
What could be simpler than that?
As for people who still send their mail by UUCP, it has always been the
case that if they include a From (or Reply-To) with an address on RFC 2822
format (i.e. local-part(_at_)domain), then they are supposed to arrange with
some friendly internet site somewhere to act as a gateway for them, and to
publish an MX accordingly. That has always been the case.
A message that simply contains "From: foo!bar!baz" is not an RFC 2822
message.
And if your message contains "From:foo!bar(_at_)baz(_dot_)uucp", then there is
no way
to publish an SSP for it, even if some smart sendmail system can still
figure out how to send replies back to it. So I don't think UUCP systems
pose any real problem for SSP.
--
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