On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 07:48:07AM -0500, hector wrote:
The main point I wish to make is that there is no calling order that
anyone can make a correlation with for filtering as you are
proposing.
That's why I proposed one in the first place.
Does the referenced RFC statement also imply
that a sender MUST called the first MX at each subsequent delayed
re-send attempt?
Probably not, a less preferenced MX should be tried after an unsuccesful
delivery attempt, as far as I understand.
Your proposal/suggestion can hurt a working system IMO.
If that working system is not behaving well (RFC compliant) then I don't
care.
It can't
simply assume that the first MX will be available at all times or
that it will be the first IP tried at all times.
We already agreed on that (see some mails ago) and the proposal was
already rejected on that ground, to which I agreed. Currently, we are
discussing alternatives, such as XCLIENT and so on.
The specs may
imply the caller MUST sort and by implication call the first IP, but
it would seem odd to me to design anything around that. It would be
so unreliable. You can't enforce it or guarantee that this order is
persistent or consistent.
Yes, and that is unfortunate and not easily fixable (there might be some
clever tricks though). Also, for some sites, it might in practice be
very consistent, but in general, there are no quarantees. For some
special cases it might be interesting to enforce RFC compliance.
Regards,
Evert
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp