On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 19:40 -0700, Douglas Otis wrote:
This section also imposes a new
interoperability requirement for SMTP that previously did not exist.
Prior to the imposition of this requirement, crucial systems with
addresses assigned within a host address entry could sustain
communications even in the event of DNS becoming inoperable.
Perhaps the following sentence could be added:
---
To ensure message reception remains viable for crucial systems when
DNS fails, the IP addresses of crucial SMTP clients should be white-
listed. This will allow ADSP and DKIM to be selectively bypassed
during such events.
Surely the right and ability of administrators to make such arrangements
with respect to the relationships between machines under their control -
and/or that of others with whom they have private arrangements - is
implicit in _all_ RFCs?
That a spec doesn't give me permission to add whitelisting facilities
for communication between crucial hosts doesn't mean that I can't do so,
nor that my doing so creates interoperability problems.
- Roland
--
Roland Turner | Product Manager, RealMail | BoxSentry Pte Ltd
3 Phillip Street, #13-03 Commerce Point, Singapore 048693
Mob: +65 96700022 | Skype: roland.turner | Fax. +65 65365463
roland(_dot_)turner(_at_)boxsentry(_dot_)com | www.boxsentry.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html