ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

<responsible-client> versus <sending-host>

2004-05-06 13:01:44

If a domain has administrative control of an MTA, policy statements
regarding this client should be unambiguous and be expressed by this
domain and not by sender domains.  This record can indicate processes
made at the client on behalf of the server as example.  These policy
checks can be in place before reliance on the 'from' information is
practical.  Without a <responsible-client> included as part of the
policy set, trust could be misplaced and incorrectly accounted.

Checks or notifications need not be specified initially other than to
clarify having a matching helo domain and a specific DNS record.  As
with the SPF proposal, it could be designated <responsible-client> to
clarify the domain involved with client policy otherwise it remains
unclear what domain is used with the term <sending-host>.  Any sender
domain could declare the IP of the client, yet these domains have no
administrative control over client policy and processes.

-Doug





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • <responsible-client> versus <sending-host>, Douglas Otis <=