[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: Small addition to draft-gellens-submit-bis-02.txt

2005-07-07 09:20:38

 A discussion on the ietf-smtp mailinglist made me think and suggest
the following small addition to your draft

I missed that discussion.  I'll have to look for it.

it is in the:
Annonimous final delivery / submission tread
Between me and Hector Santos

Ps i still do not understand what Hector means by "Annonimous Final Delivery"

 To add to the last paragraph of
 3.1.  Submission Identification

 If an MSA host accepts messages on port 25 then DNS-MX records
SHOULD NOT point to this host.

 or more extensivly

 If a host accepts messages on port 25 for submission only then
DNS-MX RR-records for this domain MUST NOT point to this host.

I don't think we can make such a change, for two reasons: (1) the
draft has already been approved and is in the RFC Editor's queue,  and
such a change can't be considered strictly editorial and hence can't
be done at this stage; (2) I don't think such a change would be a
good idea, because some sites do point MX records at their submission
servers, and some clients do check MX records in order to discover
the submission server.

Really i do not know any MUA/ mailclients  that uses MX records, but i think 
you have much more experience than me in this.
Ps i have nothing against and are in favor of A records pointing at MSA's

 This is just a small addition to make (even more) clear that MSA's
are not relay or delivery  systems.

 Please let me know if you agree or why you disagree with it.

I like the idea of making a more clear distinction, and I'd like to
move away from the use of port 25 for submission.  I just don't think
this prohibition is the way to do it.

It is only a prohibition if there is only submission at port 25.
MX records are (primarely?) for finding a  relaying or delivering MTA for that 
domain, that is why having MX record pointing at an MSA is not an useful option.

But i can see your point about the RFC editors queue, I didn't know that the 
draft was allready so far on the RFC track

Thanks for your reply

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