Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John Leslie wrote: > >> I'm happy to call it "registration" too. I think this should tend >> to get us thinking about the right thing. How should the intent to >> receive email for a domain be signaled? > > The current model permits no email-specific registration, in order to > operate a mail-receiving service.
This statement is exactly correct. > Anything that eliminates use of an A/AAAA record changes this basic > flexibility. This statement is not. One could say, "Anything that eliminates the use of an A RR as a substitute registration changes this flexibility." And, I'll admit up-front that I'd like to do so. But that's not the subject at hand. > > So the requirement "How should the intent to receive email for a > domain be signaled?" is, in fact, a very basic change to the core > Internet mail service model. Funny, I thought it was a question. Dave is certainly entitled to an opinion that there shouldn't be any such way -- thought I don't think that's _quite_ what he's saying. (I wish he'd be a little clearer.) > In a clean-slate exercise, there are good reasons to consider > imposing that requirement. In a world with decades of momentum for > administering and operating email a certain way, changing the > registration model warrants separate, careful, and extended > consideration. ... which is why I'm prepared to accept continuing the RFC2821 language. But while we're discussing the subject, I see nothing wrong with raising the issue. Perhaps somebody might become convinced that active registration is worth encouraging. (There are those of us that thought we were doing so when 2821 was written...) > It is a topic thoroughly worthy of that consideration. Thank you. > However, trying to squeeze that effort into the RFC2821bis process > is a good way to kill both. ... which makes me wonder why folks are so intent on squeezing an extension of Implied-MX into this (hopefully) Draft Standard... -- John Leslie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
