ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: towards a compromise

2004-04-23 05:09:40



On 4/23/04 1:50 AM, "Greg Connor" <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org> wrote:

Hi Margaret.

I think I agree with most of what you have said.  But, I want to be quite
clear on this point, so I will ask explicitly: Did you *disagree* with
anything *I* said?
Yes, we agree. It was just some of your phrasing made me a little nervous; I
wanted to make extra sure that all readers understood that there an awful
lot of legitimate combinations of domains used 2822,2821, and HELO out
there.

See below for comments and (mostly) requests for clarification...

Right.  I guess that comes back to my point which was, the sender has total
control over when to use a domain in one context or the other.  If the
domain owner wants to have a published policy used ONLY for 2821 or ONLY
for 2822, he is free to use the domain ONLY in MAIL FROM and not in the
headers, or vice versa.

If someone is *really* a control freak, and wants to be able to 100%
reliably steer the receiver in one direction or another, using two
different domains is really the way to go.

I can see that some members here *really* want to be able to include some
tags that say "Don't do 2821 checking" or "Don't do 2822 checking".  I'm
not really against this, but I *STILL* have not seen a real-world example
of why this might be needed (or even a hypothetical example).

This I think is your general point, and I agree.
 
In other words, I am certainly *NOT* assuming that domains will send only
mail with the same 2821 and 2822.  If they are not the same domain, that's
great, we're home free.  If they *DO* choose to use the same domain for
both 2821 and 2822, I expect them to make a policy statement for that
domain that can be used in both contexts.

Yes