[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP

2020-01-02 12:51:23
On 1/2/20 1:06 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

On 1/2/2020 9:18 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
no NAT between the MSA and the MX SMTP server.

"MX Server"?

Since MX is used for destination side delivery, I'm not sure which MTA you mean, since MSAs aren't modeled as talking to the delivery site. Please clarify.

I mean a server that accepts incoming mail on behalf of a mail domain.  Normally they are advertised using MX records.  Sorry if that wasn't clear; I thought "MX server" would be an unambiguous shorthand.

To me the point at which a message crosses a boundary between mail domains - i.e. from an MTA forwarding outgoing mail from one domain, to an MTA accepting incoming mail for what is likely a different domain, is interesting.   It's especially important for the standards to get that interface right, because that interface is what lets us send mail from arbitrary senders to arbitrary recipients and have a reasonable expectation of that mail getting there.

If MTAs A and B are both managed by the same mail domain, and A sends mail to B, it's not a problem whether B accepts EHLO with ip domain literals.   If B accepts them, fine, because it's only internal traffic anyway.   If B rejects EHLO with ip domain literals, that's also fine, because that same domain can presumably also arrange for A to use a DNS name there.    It's when the mail is relayed between mail domains that the standards need to provide guidance, because when sending domain and receiving domain have different assumptions about what is right, it causes unnecessary failures.


ietf-smtp mailing list
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>