I remain convinced that it is absolutely essential to retain the
existence check. Making it advisory would be a serious mistake.
eric
--On May 22, 2008 4:03:28 PM +0000 John Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com>
wrote:
We don't seem to have resolved the question of whether the ADSP
should define a specific existence check, or just say that you
should check but leave the definition for other places.
Personally, I think it's severe mission creep to try to define an
existence check. It's straightforward to check for a NXDOMAIN or
NODATA result, but I see no reason to think that such a check has
the semantics an ADSP user would want.
To touch on some of the issues (and try not to rehash them all), the
majority of A and AAAA records don't name domains used in mail and
you can't check short of sending a test message and waiting a week
to see if it bounces, there's many ways a name can exist but again
not for mail (what if there's just a TXT record), and any check we
defined would just be wrong if, e.g., next year we make MX . the
no-mail standard.
So I like Arvel and Wietse's approach, say to do it but don't try to
define it since any definition would be wrong. Other thoughts?
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html