On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 07:05:17 -0000, Hector Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doug, for the record, I was more against the MX lookup MUST in the SSP > record discovery setup. IMO, I prefer it to be a MAY or even a SHOULD > only because historically it was not a requirement and therefore highly > possible that the MX did not exist. However, having an MX record has always been regarded as Best Practice (as opposed to relying on just a naked A record). So all we are now saying is that if you are now proposing to publish SSP, then you MUST henceforth start accepting that Best Practice by publishing an MX as well. If you are not prepared to do that, then Do Not publish an SSP. What could be simpler than that? As for people who still send their mail by UUCP, it has always been the case that if they include a From (or Reply-To) with an address on RFC 2822 format (i.e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]), then they are supposed to arrange with some friendly internet site somewhere to act as a gateway for them, and to publish an MX accordingly. That has always been the case. A message that simply contains "From: foo!bar!baz" is not an RFC 2822 message. And if your message contains "From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]", then there is no way to publish an SSP for it, even if some smart sendmail system can still figure out how to send replies back to it. So I don't think UUCP systems pose any real problem for SSP. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
