[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-smtp] G.7.3 --- resolvable FQDNs

2020-08-10 16:16:59

--On Monday, 10 August, 2020 13:15 -0700 Michael Peddemors
<michael(_at_)linuxmagic(_dot_)com> wrote:

On 2020-08-10 12:23 p.m., Claus Assmann wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020, Michael Peddemors wrote:

There SHOULD be a URL that responds to,
where information

This is e-mail, not some web stuff.
The contact information for various purposes are defined in
the RFCs (e.g., postmaster for e-mail).

The reason is for all the people who are NOT engineers, have
an easy way to contact someone for ANY issues related to that

That is the first difficulty.  It is not unusual, probably even
common these days, for the person or group managing the domain
to be different from the person or group managing the email
systems for that domain.  For the domain management, you've got
too hooks-- whois (or the registry database du jour) and the
email address in the SOA record.  If one is useless and the
other is even less maintained than Postmaster, tell it to ICANN:
Allowing domains without available "help" or other contact
information is a policy decision, not a technical one that is
going to be solved by new or different mechanisms.  For the
email side, what causes you to believe that an email system
operator who does not listen to Postmaster will listen or
respond to a special URL?

As well, with everyone hiding 'whois', and so many companies
that don't have a proper postmaster, or even check the
postmaster mailbox, it does make sense, which is why it was
recommended as a best practice.

At least IMO, it doesn't make sense unless and until there is
evidence that the operators or policy makers who cannot or will
not make information available or respond to queries via
established protocols will decided to make it available given a
new mechanism.

There are more than just engineers out there that want to find
out who is behind the 'mask'..

Sure.  But the direction of things favors "right to be masked"
rather than "right to find out who or what is causing a problem
and get it fixed".

And do note that mailto:postmaster(_at_)example(_dot_)com is a URL.

But yes, maybe it doesn't strictly belong in SMTP language,
but a 'suggestion' might be in order..

You could try writing an Internet-Draft pointing out that it is
really, really, important to have that information available.
But, given the conflict between that goal and privacy, I
wouldn't be optimistic about its getting traction.


ietf-smtp mailing list