John Levine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Over in DKIM land there is a battle going on with respect to the > treatment of domains that don't exist, with "don't exist" meaning > something like an authoritative DNS server doesn't return an MX or A > or AAAA or CNAME for the name.
I'm guessing you mean the thread containing http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2008q2/009986.html where you wrote: ] Jim Fenton wrote: ]>> If ADSP can depend on a well-specified requirement for ]>> checking for the existence of the domain, please indicate ]>> where this is specified. ] ] The current 2821bis draft says in sec 5: ] ] Only resolvable, fully-qualified, domain names (FQDNs) are permitted ] when domain names are used in SMTP. In other words, names that can ] be resolved to MX RRs or address (i.e. A or AAAA) RRs (as discussed ] in Section 5) are permitted, as are CNAME RRs whose targets can be ] resolved, in turn, to MX or address RRs. Local nicknames or ] unqualified names MUST NOT be used. which, in fact, comes from section 2.3.5. > Looking through the current draft, it looks to me like everyone > assumes that domain names have to exist, with the explicit exception > of the HELO/EHLO name, but it never says so in so many words. This language is also found in RFC 2821 Section 3.6; and it does, IMHO, say that a domain which does not exist in the DNS is out-of-spec. However, I see no plausible reading of this text to _require_ testing for the existence of a domain, which is what I believe the DKIM WG was hoping for. (OTOH, it _would_ seem to legitimize any existence-testing that the DKIM WG might require as _part_of_ using the DKIM protocol.) > Is this a deliberate omission, or is it so obvious that it wasn't > worth stating explicitly? I most seriously doubt that consensus could be found to _require_ such testing as part of 2821bis. -- John Leslie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
