\
Under such a system, it would be up to the zone maintainer to determine
which scopes to provide data on. It would be up to the MTA running
the check to determine which checks to run.
Does the IPR really cover the syntax of the published record? I thought
the only significant IPR was the PRA algorithm itself, on the MTA side.
Why not just leave the IPR question only in the hands of the MTA folks,
and just let people publish their records unscoped?
I support scoping what the published data means "these are the approved mail
servers for this domain" but not scoping which experimental and incomplete
algorithm the data is intended for.
An unscoped record would be meaningless, as the MTA checking the
record would not know which identity was at issue. This has been
covered before; please read the archives.
Apologies if I am not aware of the specific posts you are referring to.
Nevertheless, I fail to see how publishing "the approved mail servers for
sending e-mail from a domain" is an amibiguous "identity" without algorithm
scope?
Seems to me that your implication that someone would need to publish different
mail servers depending on whether the Return-Path or PRA header is being
evaluated is not mainstream. And I have asserted that once you publish the
data in the DNS, you have no control over how receivers are going to evaluate
that data any way. Since none of the scoped algorithms give a 100% final
result, it is obvious that receivers are going to experiment with many
algorithm scopes.
Please enlighten me on the past discussion about "identity" as an algorithm
instead of as "approved mail servers"?
Also do you think the average users can ever be educated on the nuances of
their use of e-mail relative to some complex permutations of algorithm scopes
and multiple DNS records?