On May 1, 2008, at 5:16 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Steve,
The discussion is not over what recipient behavior in that
case will actually be (reject or discard it because it's
claiming to come from someone who doesn't exist), rather
it's over whether the ADSP spec needs to prescribe that
behavior.
Then we are (once again) counting angels on the head of a pin.
Yup. I was summarizing where I think the group is at rather than
expressing much of an opinion.
Many people will read this specification and attempt to discern
behavior for, if nothing else, diagnostic purposes.
Nobody has answered the basic question of what harm would be caused
with the text being left in.
It makes the spec significantly less clean, as it stops being about
anything DKIM related and starts redefining how SMTP works. For a BCP
that wouldn't be a problem (as the practices it's suggesting are, IMO,
"best" in at least that specific case) but stomping on the toes of
unrelated standards is an issue for a standard.
And everyone agrees it's the right thing to do.
If you mean "reject mail from people who don't exists', yes, I think
they do. If you mean "include that requirement in a standards spec"
it's a bit more grey. I wouldn't be satisfied if it wasn't mentioned
at all, but I'd be leary of anything as strong as a MUST in there too.
I think the NXDOMAIN (or "check for A or MX", if you prefer) issue is
being caught in the crossfire of the treewalking proposal, which has
more serious issues.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html