Alan DeKok wrote:
Philip Miller <millenix(_at_)zemos(_dot_)net> wrote:
I agree with the above, but you forgot the case of the final destinations
pointed to by forwarding sites. They are basically forced to use rewriting.
e.g. pobox.com.
My concern then, is one of terminology. I don't see forwarding
sites as "store and forward" for SMTP. Instead, they're algorithmic
gateways. They transform an input message into an output message.
That transformation is controlled by local site policy, and is outside
of the scope of SMTP.
OK, I'm fine with that. The important point here is that we explicitly say
that there's no problem for them, so long as they take the simple step of
implementing sender rewriting.
In contrast, backup MXs are true store and forward. They don't
modify the message, except to record that it was stored and
forwarded.
OK, I see the terminology you're using. I guess we need to find better words
than 'forward'.
If you know your mail is being stored on another
server and forwarded to you, it's pointless to require that site to
have an LMAP record for your domain. And even if a domain does
require it, the domain aministrators can add LMAP records to their own
DNS.
Then you disenfranchise people who don't have administrative control over
their inbound email.
I don't see how. *Someone* has administrative control over the
inbound email. It's that persons responsibility to ensure that the
mail gets delivered. They can choose to use LMAP, or not, but either
way, the messages must get delivered.
If the final recipient doesn't have administrative control over DNS
for their domain, that doesn't matter. They're in the same situation
as users at ISP's: they pay someone to manage their email system.
The messages must get delivered, or bounced, or dropped. Inevitably, some
ISPs will not bounce mail that doesn't validate, but simply throw it away.
We can say that's a bad thing for them to do, but we can't stop them from
doing it. Since neither the sender nor recipient will know definitively that
it was dropped, it could be a long time before anything as intangible as
'market forces' ends that policy.
When we have a concrete proposal in hand, we can put this point to the test,
and see how things fare.
Philip Miller