Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
John Leslie wrote:
I'm happy to call it "registration" too. I think this should tend
to get us thinking about the right thing. How should the intent to
receive email for a domain be signaled?
The current model permits no email-specific registration, in order to
operate a mail-receiving service.
This statement is exactly correct.
Anything that eliminates use of an A/AAAA record changes this basic
flexibility.
This statement is not.
One could say, "Anything that eliminates the use of an A RR as a
substitute registration changes this flexibility."
And, I'll admit up-front that I'd like to do so. But that's not
the subject at hand.
So the requirement "How should the intent to receive email for a
domain be signaled?" is, in fact, a very basic change to the core
Internet mail service model.
Funny, I thought it was a question.
Dave is certainly entitled to an opinion that there shouldn't be
any such way -- thought I don't think that's _quite_ what he's saying.
(I wish he'd be a little clearer.)
In a clean-slate exercise, there are good reasons to consider
imposing that requirement. In a world with decades of momentum for
administering and operating email a certain way, changing the
registration model warrants separate, careful, and extended
consideration.
... which is why I'm prepared to accept continuing the RFC2821
language.
But while we're discussing the subject, I see nothing wrong with
raising the issue. Perhaps somebody might become convinced that
active registration is worth encouraging.
(There are those of us that thought we were doing so when 2821
was written...)
It is a topic thoroughly worthy of that consideration.
Thank you.
However, trying to squeeze that effort into the RFC2821bis process
is a good way to kill both.
... which makes me wonder why folks are so intent on squeezing an
extension of Implied-MX into this (hopefully) Draft Standard...
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>