Follow up with my review of the DNA specs:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hector Santos" <hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com>
To: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>;
<ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 5:27 AM
Subject: CVS Questions/Comments [was Re: Comparing apples to multiple,
hypothetical oranges]
| 9. Working Group Evaluation
|
| This section contains responses to the issues put forward by the
| MARID working group chairs.
|
| 1. Amount of change in software components
|
| Client MTA's MUST put their registered domain name in EHLO
| announcements.
In addition to this, I see:
2) SMTP servers need to maintain a list of acceditation services
available.
Must be more available for my cheap sysop customers. <g>
Is this addressed in draft-ietf-marid-csv-dna-00 section
"4. Listing Pointer Service Record Template"
??
Based on what I reading in:
| 5. Accreditation Procedure
| A receiving SMTP server validates a sending SMTP client by:
|
| 1. Obtaining the domain name of the client.
|
| 2. Determining that the name is being used by an authorized party.
|
| 3. Creating a list of accreditation services to query, both those
| the client has registered and those obtained by the server
| through other means -- such as those that perform block-listing
| -- to query.
|
| 4. Querying those services for assessments of the host associated
I would think that the CSA process is the best place for the domain to
define who he is "Paying Big Bucks" to in order to authorized what I
essentially call the domain "permit". The server is going to have to run a
CSA process anyway so why have it go to DNA first?
I'm thinking on how to "zoom" in as fast as possible with the less number of
lookups. Mind you, I trying to get this all straight to see how to code it.
Also, to reiterate, I don't care if the domain says "MAPS" or
"ItsAllGood.Com" is its acceditation/DNA site. If I don't trust them or
honor them, why should accept what the DNA site reports? Maybe the DNA site
like MAPS who is profit oriented needs to have a profit-sharing strategy
like maybe 1% to honor its member mail? I only raise this as one of the
potential "troubling aspect" of the coupling of a acceditation CSA
authorization agent. I agree something is required, but......
Another point.
RBL works and is well established. It is going to be very hard to replace
this with CVS. How can an RBL site work in conjunction with CVS/DNA/CSA?
What if I run both and apply RBL, CVS/DNA/CSA passes the domain with flying
colors but RBL is rejecting the IP?
Dave et al, these are valid questions for implementators. I don't think it
can ignored. Your advice is appreciated.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com