but on the other hand it's specifically tailored to client SMTP
("_VOUCH._SMTP" etc.). the EHLO domain name can be chosen relatively
arbitrarily, and you should be careful not to claim that reputable use
of the EHLO name extends to other services.
that might be why the _vouch qualifies (is specifically linked to) _smtp.
if DNA can be applied to identities
established with mechanisms other than the implied CSV-CSA, this MUST in
my humble opinion be tagged in the accreditation record with a service
different from "MARID", and as such the interpration will be out of
scope for the CSV-DNA specification. we do not want to (potentially)
repeat the MAIL FROM vs. PRA mistake, do we?
I've read this paragraph several times. I am simply not understanding it. At
the least, I have no idea what the reference to tagging with a service
different
from marid means.
as the two reputations in CSV aren't connected, it is safe to say that
the recovery will be quick...
No doubt my confusion is from not reading this thread carefully enough,
but I do
not know what "two" reputations are being referenced. CSV deals with one
identity, namely the host name provided in the client smtp's helo/ehlo
command.
the scenario was that a domain owner had chosen an e-mail provider with
bad reputation for its MTA name. if the domain owner switches e-mail
provider, the new provider's MTA name will be completely independent,
and the domain owner's sent e-mail will instaneously be rid of the bad
reputation.
That's why the helo/ehlo name is associated with the MTA operator. Your
phrasing suggests that the "domain owner" is somehow separate from the "email
provider", whereas the ehlo name IS the email provider.
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net