That sounds fine. Are you saying you prefer the document to not list the
example mappings we know about, or are you okay with still mentioning
the example mappings?
This whole can of worms needs attention from the people who think about
mail all the time. The RFCs are quite clear that mailbox namees are
opaque and clients are not allowed to make any assumptions that similar
names are the same mailbox. Servers can use CNAMEs to publish likely
variants that people will try, but I'm wondering whether it will still
turn out to be too frustrating to use.
anything else that uses a hashed mailbox. This suggests if we go down
that road, the name management belongs in a separate document from the
definition of the RR type, and it needs attention from the SMTP crowd.
Agreed.
OK. Want me to split it out and do a draft? Can't submit it now but we
can talk about it in Dallas.
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
