On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 19:40 -0700, Douglas Otis wrote: > This section also imposes a new > interoperability requirement for SMTP that previously did not exist. > Prior to the imposition of this requirement, crucial systems with > addresses assigned within a host address entry could sustain > communications even in the event of DNS becoming inoperable. > > Perhaps the following sentence could be added: > --- > > To ensure message reception remains viable for crucial systems when > DNS fails, the IP addresses of crucial SMTP clients should be white- > listed. This will allow ADSP and DKIM to be selectively bypassed > during such events.
Surely the right and ability of administrators to make such arrangements with respect to the relationships between machines under their control - and/or that of others with whom they have private arrangements - is implicit in _all_ RFCs? That a spec doesn't give me permission to add whitelisting facilities for communication between crucial hosts doesn't mean that I can't do so, nor that my doing so creates interoperability problems. - Roland -- Roland Turner | Product Manager, RealMail | BoxSentry Pte Ltd 3 Phillip Street, #13-03 Commerce Point, Singapore 048693 Mob: +65 96700022 | Skype: roland.turner | Fax. +65 65365463 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.boxsentry.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
