ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] why we should clearly specify domain existence

2008-05-27 04:16:17
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Tony Finch wrote:

I think the specification should not prevent implementations
from using more thorough verification if they choose

For an ADSP result "nxdomain" they can't do whatever they like
better, e.g., "call back verification" might work, but it's not
the same as "nxdomain".

You seem to be repeating my point that if the spec requires an NXDOMAIN
check then an implementation cannot be stricter if it wishes.

Note again that I AM NOT ADVOCATING CALL-BACK VERIFICATION. You snipped
the part of my message where I said "the discussion is about DNS-only
verification."

I am talking about checks such as recognizing MX 0 . or treating
MX-points-to-RFC1918 as invalid.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at>  http://dotat.at/
DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND PLYMOUTH: VARIABLE OR EAST 3 OR 4 BACKING NORTHEAST 5 OR
6. SLIGHT OR MODERATE. THUNDERY RAIN, FOG PATCHES. MODERATE, OCCASIONALLY VERY
POOR.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html