On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
> 1: The participation record is optional, so you only use it if you
> want "everything else" to be rejected.
This is why I would support mtamark... It permits the sysadmin to
determine the default behaviour for his IP range, rather than defining a
dangerous default in the client.
In what way does the above define a dangerous default?
It doesn't. My comment refers to early messages where the author of
'mtx' said that the 'standard' behaviour in the absence of any mtx
record as being equivalent to a 'deny' condition. That is, the domain
would be scored as 'spammish' if it did not participate.
The default in the statement above is to consider a domain as *not*
participating unless otherwise stated by whoever manages the DNS for the
domain.
Correct. And my comment was that this was a much better alternative to
the 'dangerous default' of having 'not participating' mean 'spammy'.
If the domain does not participate it should not be punished when a MTX
record isn't found.
You got it. Exactly. And that's why I gave up on MTX. Because the author
was insisting that exactly that should happen.
- C
