ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LMAP Validation Analysis

2004-03-10 13:23:01


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Philip Miller" <millenix(_at_)zemos(_dot_)net>
To: "Hector Santos" <hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: LMAP Validation Analysis


The following IP/Domain association assertions are made:

LMAP = IP :: HELO domain
LMAP = IP :: MAIL FROM domain

Most proposals make it possible to assert one, the other, or both, while
this text makes it appear that both must be asserted.

Ok. I'll clear that up.

Not necessarily TXT records. I think you should replace the phrase "domain
DNS TXT record" with "DNS record".

Ok.

Other than the above, this looks good, although it could use a bit more
bulk.

More discussion, explanations?

I did start out as a comparison showing DMP vs SPF showing how SPF lacked a
provision for HELO spoofing, but now that Meng has added a new provision to
address this,  I wanted to now generalized it as much as I can showing how
all envelope entities can help define the scope of the LMAP methodology.
The idea is to look at the entire picture first, then we see how each
proposal fits in the generalized model.

I still need to finish the "trush" analysis for all the possibility
scenarioes in the group DL.  For example in Group item DL12 where each
entity is remote, for a pure NONE/PASS/FAIL system (like DMP), you have 8
expanded states.  With SPF, it expands to 55 possible states!   I'll show
you what  I mean when I'm done.

I appreciate your input.

-- 
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>