[Top] [All Lists]

Re: draft-daboo-srv-email

2010-01-08 12:43:19

Cyrus Daboo wrote:

2) What about outgoing?

Are MX records considered the solution?

Using GMAIL as an example, I think it only allows IMAP for receiving and
SUBMIT (port 587) for sending.  So wouldn't a SRV record be useful for
the case where SMTP is used for outgoing when the incoming uses IMAP?

The current spec defines _submission._tcp in Section 3.1 which covers email client submission server discovery.

Sorry, I missed that section (short section, page cut off).

Ok, so overall, a suggested logic would be:

  - Query for _pop3s, _imaps, _pop3, _imap
    (order implementation based)

  - If more than one, offer user selection.

  - Query for _submission

I think this is a simple protocol logic for implementation. Anything beyond that is specific to the MUA client.

Regarding SRV in general, I can provide some personal experience. You might consider some of these as "encouragement" material for any draft update.

Until sometime in 2008, we used an NT 4.0 domain controller and DNS server and never had a need to upgrade. The machine served its isolated purpose. Hotfixes were provided per MS request but that ended in 2008 and last year's DNS "DoS Exploit of the year" forced the issue to update the DNS server. The DNS server was moved to a Windows 2003 enterprise box. That move solved the security issue and also allowed us to use SRV records to improve our jabber (XMPP) server discovery process.

So I think past reasons for not using SRV are passe. At least within the legacy windows world, SRV records are more applicable today from a support standpoint because any remaining DNS 4.0 server can no longer operate safely and are forced to upgrade thus offering SRV query support.


Hector Santos

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>