Arvel Hathcock:
What do you feel are the technical deficiencies of draft-levine-dkim-adsp?
The biggest problem of course is that it's not a working group document.
If we're to start working now on other documents then Doug Otis is ahead
of you guys in line since he's had a replacement offering for some time.
Let's not start down that road.
Let's just get on with having the chairs conduct a straw-poll. The
question is pathetically simple: Should the next draft of the working
group document retain the NXDOMAIN check or not? Yes or no. This is
really easy folks.
If there is insufficient consensus either way then we can either give up
or work toward some compromise language.
The least ambiguous ways to validate an author domain are a) get an
NXDOMAIN result for the author domain; b) talk to an authoritative
SMTP server for the author domain, which is obviously not practical.
DNS lookup per RFC 2821 section 5 provides only an approximation
of what author domains are valid: not every A/AAAA/whatever record
corresponds to a valid origin of email. So we might just as well
keep it simple and settle for the existing NXDOMAIN check.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html