On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Arvel Hathcock
<arvel(_dot_)hathcock(_at_)altn(_dot_)com> wrote:
> Having non-normative text that describes it serves to promote the idea
> but not couple it with the fate of ADSP.
Non-normative language leaves ADSP deployers in the dark about whether
the protocol can be relied on because success would depend upon an
optional NXDOMAIN check that some have, some don't, and none need
perform. Since we know the protocol needs this in order to avoid being
trivially defeated and since it has already been acknowledged as a
common practice it seems inexcusable for an engineering team to make it
an optional thing or to simply "promote the idea."
Perhaps we could get some other people to weigh in on this matter.
I think I agree with you.
I am not understanding what is revolutionary about an NXDOMAIN check.
I see sites rejecting mail based on NXDOMAIN currently, regularly. I
would even dare to call this an observable best practice. I would need
to hear more on how it modifies SMTP and/or turns the universe on its
ear -- I'm not yet convinced that it is as earth shattering as
described.
Regards,
Al Iverson
--
Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverability, see http://www.spamresource.com
News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists: http://www.dnsbl.com
My personal website: http://www.aliverson.com -- Chicago, IL, USA
Remove "lists" from my email address to reach me faster and directly.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html