That snip isn't in the draft I posted. Any chance you're looking at the
wrong version?
On Sat, 24 May 2008, Arvel Hathcock wrote:
The major changes since -02 are:
* don't try to define our own existence check, but do make ADSP apply only
to domains that exist
Your draft still contains a step 2 which defines an existence check.
I think this is perfectly acceptable but am wondering whether you intended to
include it?
--SNIP--
2. The host MUST query DNS for an MX record corresponding to the
domain (with no prefix). This query is made only to check the
existence of the domain name and MAY be done in parallel with the
query made in step 1. If the result of this query is an NXDOMAIN
error, the domain does not exist and the algorithm terminates.
--END SNIP--
Perhaps there isn't a conflict here anymore? Your step 2 is perfectly
acceptable to me.
However, your section 4.4 is less clear than the original draft because
you're using simply "domain" in several places rather than "Author Domain"
which therefore could introduce the question "which domain are they talking
about".
Arvel
Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet
for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html