At 03:31 AM 5/24/2005 +0000, Mark wrote:
David MacQuigg wrote:
> At 12:28 PM 5/23/2005 -0400, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
>
> > Good luck with your mission to introduce another identity to the SMTP
> > protocol. Since SPF is about authenticating the existing MAIL FROM
> > identity (despite its drawbacks), hopefully discussions of the new
> > ID identity will move to an appropriate list.
>
> You must not have read the summary in the 7 minutes since I
> posted.
I, too, wish you good luck with your mission to introduce another identity
to the SMTP protocol; because a new SMTP verb "ID" would most certainly be
an SMTP service extension -- despite your odd protestations.
The draft calls for an IANA registered SMTP service extension. See the
section IANA Considerations. I never said otherwise.
> This is not a new identity, just a way to declare an existing
> identity. It is no more a new identity than SUBMITTER or SRS.
SUBMITTER, assuredly, is a new identity:
C: MAIL FROM:<somuser(_at_)example(_dot_)com>
SUBMITTER=<whoever(_at_)forwarder(_dot_)com>
S: 250 Ok
Sorry for the confusion. See my reply to Stuart. It is a new identity
with new semantics, but most often will be literally the same as an
existing identity. It does not need a new authentication method. That is
the question I was focused on at the time.
The ID command provides a domain name independent of other names in the
envelope and header. There are three semantics associated with this new name.
1) It may be used for accreditation and reputation.
2) It may be used to specify the location for authentication records.
3) It may be used, after authentication, as a bounce address for complaints
and challenges relating to spam.
> Would you rather use SUBMITTER or the proposed ID?
SUBMITTER, at least, serves some useful purpose.
If this ID proposal is not accepted, then I would support SUBMITTER as the
standard.
Your ID, otoh, is no more
than a glorified extra HELO; and who needs that?
!!! Where did you get this? The new ID *can* be the same as the HELO
identity, but probably only the CSV folks will insist on that. As I
understand it, the HELO identity is supposed to be the hostname of the
sending MTA. That is not the best place to accumulate reputation, locate
authentication records, or send Spam Bounces. It most likely won't even
have a DNS record.
--
Dave
************************************************************ *
* David MacQuigg, PhD email: david_macquigg at yahoo.com * *
* IC Design Engineer phone: USA 520-721-4583 * * *
* Analog Design Methodologies * * *
* 9320 East Mikelyn Lane * * *
* VRS Consulting, P.C. Tucson, Arizona 85710 *
************************************************************ *