At 12:21 PM -0800 03/16/2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Given that this is the charter lets try to avoid all use of terms
that are considered contentious by anyone, in particular 'policy',
'authorization' etc.
Sadly, I think this would leave us with no terms at all.
I think that's what he wants. :-)
++++++++++++new++++text+++++++++++++++
It would be useful for those maintaining domains and networks
to be able to specify that individual hosts or nodes are authorized
to act as MTAs for messages sent from those domains or networks.
This working group will develop a DNS-based mechanism for
storing and distributing information associated with that
authorization.
I'm happy with this, as it describes exactly what the existing proposals try
to do.
The primary current use case for this facility is to allow recipient
MTAs to confirm that peer MTAs' actions are authorized by
specific domains or networks. This will help combat a certain
class of domain forgery common in spam. The solution chosen,
however, should be generally useful for others which might
check this authorization data.
+++++++++end++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just to make sure I'm on the right track with the language used, if it isn't
English or some proprietary form of legalese, I'm interpreting
"authorization" as the sender domain saying: "These hosts or nodes can act as
MTAs for our domain or network."
--
PGP key (0x0AFA039E):
<http://www.pan-am.ca/consulting(_at_)pan-am(_dot_)ca(_dot_)asc>
What's a PGP Key? See <http://www.pan-am.ca/free.html>
GOD BLESS AMER, er, THE INTERNET. <http://vmyths.com/rant.cfm?id=401&page=4>