This is also an issue for Email Service Providers (ESPs) that provide
hosted outbound email. Very often we do not control their DNS directly
and find that coordinating DNS changes with clients can be difficult and
error-prone (due to humans involved in the process, not technical
challenges). Anything that could move that responsibility from our
client to us is a significant benefit and will assist adoption.
~Josh
-----Original Message-----
From: Nate Leon [mailto:nleon(_at_)mailfrontier(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thu Jun 03 22:47:00 2004
To: MARID WG
Subject: RE: Using MX as the pointer to the other RR
This was raised (probably by the same guy :-) at the SPF BOF. Suresh
Ramasubramanian from Outblaze strongly echoed his sentiment. I didn't
hear any disagreement. More work for implementers, but interesting.
Nate
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Andrew
Newton
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 10:14 PM
To: MARID WG
Subject: Using MX as the pointer to the other RR
At the INBOXEVENT, I had an interesting talk with a gentlemen working
for an email hosting provider. His company hosts email but rarely DNS
for their customers (the split was something like 2,000 domains that
they host vs. 65,000 that are customer hosted). As I recall, there are
a couple of spam-filtering companies that do this too (MX redirection).
His comment was that it is very difficult for them to get the
customers to correctly add/change MX records and fears that a MARID
record would be much more difficult.
So he had an interesting idea. He suggested that instead of looking
for the MARID record in the domain of the sender, look for it at the MX
target of the sender. This solves his problem since his DNS zone is
the MX target. This also leads to a solution to the wildcard issue.
Comments?
-andy