Frank Ellermann wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
the SSP draft should mandate publishing MX records whenever
an SSP record is also published.
-1
SSP (or ASP) have no business to "mandate" MX records, that's
not their job. MX records are not required for (2)821(bis)
interoperability, and RFC 2119 has a very clear policy about
arbitrary MUSTard.
+1
DKIM by design does not depend on SMTP. Your proposal mixes
unrelated layers. I like your general MX idea, but is is no
SSP "feature".
MAJOR +1, The MX throw in was a major shock to me, just like this
(__________) SSP-02 draft!
At the very least, it should not be a MUST.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
