I agree with Marshall. I think that 1-8 are not attainable by this group
alone, and even 1-3 are *quite* a stretch.
--wayne <wayne(_at_)midwestcs(_dot_)com> wrote:
There hasn't been any consensus movement toward or strong argument for
elimination of 1, 2, or 3. Agreed?
Well 3) was the RFC2822 stuff. The more I think about it and the more
I learn about the current state of the propsals in that area, the more
confident I become in saying that there isn't a clear solution.
Therefore, I would vote for eliminating 3) for the first round, but
keep working on it for the second round.
-wayne
I think I *mostly* agree with Wayne, in that validating MAIL FROM is "a
good first round task". I certainly don't want to EXclude any 2822
efforts, but there is merit to the idea of doing MAIL FROM (and possibly
HELO) first. For one thing, we get some positive notice, a feeling of
accomplishment as a team, and some exposure to outside comments for our
MAIL FROM (and possibly HELO) proposal (that would be the C in RFC). I
think 2822 validation is a much harder problem and we will benefit from
some early success.
Here is ONE of many possible ways to proceed:
1. Think of a set of mechanisms, that "can be used to state a domain policy
with regard to an MTA IP". The set of mechanisms we decide may eventually
be applied to MAIL FROM, HELO, or From:/Sender:. I think it's pretty
important for the three problems have a common tool set (or at least as
much-overlapping as possible).
2. Apply those mechanisms to MAIL FROM and possibly HELO. Flesh out the
MAIL FROM and HELO parts of the proposal. If any mechanisms are missing,
invent them as needed. (While working on 2. some discussion might continue
with regard to 2822 From:/Sender:, but those discussions MAY be tabled by
the group leaders.)
3. Publish an RFC, not as canon law, but as a real Request For Comments
like the founding fathers intended :) While receiving comments from the
outside world, make changes as needed, and in the meantime start working on
2822 issues.
Please comment, praise, mock, etc :)
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>