On Tue, 27 May 2008 08:32:20 +0100, Douglas Otis
<dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
wrote:
On May 26, 2008, at 3:26 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2008 21:53:11 +0100, Douglas Otis <dotis(_at_)mail-
abuse.org>
wrote:
Such testing is not mission creep. The test is simply based upon
SMTP being the focus of ADSP assertions.
But SMTP IS NOT, and CANNOT BE the focus of ADSP assertions, simply
because a message may be gatewayed in and out of SMTP umpteen times
during its journey from original sender to ultimate recipient.
Messages containing addresses unrelated to SMTP will always
potentially conflict with ADSP. ...
NOT TRUE. Messages containing addresses unrelated to the DNS system will
always potentially conflict with ADSP. SMTP messages are but a subset of
those.
The true "focus of ADSP assertions" is "all those protocols which
rely upon DSN as a part off their addressing mechanisms".
There is no assurance that an undefined protocol will use DNS, since
there are already such protocols available. The draft should indicate
limitations imposed when adopting ADSP.
Exactly. And the limitation to be imposed should refer to "all those
protocols which used DNS-based addressing mechanisms", which is more than
just the one protocol SMTP.
Moreover, limiting it to SMTP is unimplementable. What test do your
propose? That is was received via SMTP? That is was originated by SMTP?
That is was passed via SMTP at every stage in its journey?
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html