On May 1, 2008, at 4:01 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2008, Jim Fenton wrote:
This is one of the reasons the ADSP specification needs to define
how this is done: just saying "don't use it on non-existent
domains" isn't precise enough.
I disagree that the ADSP spec should define valid mail domains. The
SMTP specification already defines them in section 5. There's no
need for ADSP to have a different specification for the same thing -
in fact that would be harmful. If you want to argue about what is
and isn't a valid mail domain, then get involved with the SMTP
revision process: here is the wrong place.
ADSP's current NXDOMAIN language is a particularly bad example of a
specification that disagrees with the SMTP spec, and it also seems
to be based on a misunderstanding of how the DNS works.
Tony,
Agreed (almost). Publishing ADSP should also mandate the publishing
of MX records when SMTP is supported. This helps reduce undesired
policy traffic directed toward spoofed domains.
ADSP should also take another look using large text labels and record
placement under "_domainkey". When ADSP records become highly
replicated, the unnecessary use of labels and text quickly increase
the zone size.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html