At 21:39 -0400 on 04/16/2008, Henning Schulzrinne wrote about Re:
Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing the implic:
This decision raises a somewhat larger issue, namely whether
deferring to implementor desires is always the right thing to do.
Compared to implementers, there are many more users and system
administrators. For the reasons discussed earlier and alluded to
below, they now lose in having poorer error handling and more abuse.
I thought standards writers and implementer were supposed to serve
end users (and maybe the large number of people having to install
and manage things), not the other way around. Maybe this is another
instance of the oft-bemoaned absence of operators from the IETF
discussion. End users seem to be even more absent, even indirectly.
Henning
How an implementor writes their code is ONLY relevant if the people
responsible for maintaining the DNS fail to supply MX records that
point ONLY at the hosts who are running MTAs. So long as they DO
supply these MX records (and these records supply a IPv4 connected
MTA that will accept [and possibly relay to an IPv6-Only MTA] email
for the FQDN) the issue of if the SMTP code will look for both A and
AAAA records in the absence of an MX is a non-issue. The need for
this direct use of A/AAAA is only to support DNS administrators who
for whatever reason (political, ignorance, or just laziness) fail to
supply MX records.
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf