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. > Since the SSP discovery process makes use of MX record > queries to determine whether the domain exists It could as well use A, AAAA, NS, TXR, RP (FWIW), etc. AFAIK it uses MX because that might be also used (i.e. cached) for other tasks of the MTA. > then when an SSP record is returned for a domain that has > not published an MX record, this thereby signals that both > email and DKIM are NOT used for email addresses If there are no mail authors in this domain a statement that these mails from the "non-existing" authors is always signed suffices to reject unsigned mails from these "non-existing" authors. For a domain without users this is a no-brainer, and unrelated to the non-existence of MX records. For a domain with existing users who are not "permitted" to be mail authors removing any MX records does not suffice to educate stubborn users. 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". Frank _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
