[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

2008-03-27 17:39:11

In an IETF that believes the potential recursion of URNs and
NAPTR records is reasonable, it is really hard for me to get
excited about that one possible extra lookup.   YMMD, of course.

I can't get excited about this either.

    Doug's issue, which sparked off this latest debate, would
    be addressed by codifying "MX 0 .".  This would allow hosts
    to say that do not accept email and any email (MAIL FROM)
    claiming to come from such a domain to be dropped in the
    SMTP session.

OTOH, I think standardizing this convention makes all sorts of sense, but
not, of course, in 2821bis.

        Why not in 2821bis?  Is 2821bis really that time critical?
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
IETF mailing list