On May 1, 2008, at 4:01 PM, Tony Finch wrote: > On Thu, 1 May 2008, Jim Fenton wrote: >> >> This is one of the reasons the ADSP specification needs to define >> how this is done: just saying "don't use it on non-existent >> domains" isn't precise enough. > > I disagree that the ADSP spec should define valid mail domains. The > SMTP specification already defines them in section 5. There's no > need for ADSP to have a different specification for the same thing - > in fact that would be harmful. If you want to argue about what is > and isn't a valid mail domain, then get involved with the SMTP > revision process: here is the wrong place. > > ADSP's current NXDOMAIN language is a particularly bad example of a > specification that disagrees with the SMTP spec, and it also seems > to be based on a misunderstanding of how the DNS works.
Tony, Agreed (almost). Publishing ADSP should also mandate the publishing of MX records when SMTP is supported. This helps reduce undesired policy traffic directed toward spoofed domains. ADSP should also take another look using large text labels and record placement under "_domainkey". When ADSP records become highly replicated, the unnecessary use of labels and text quickly increase the zone size. -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
