Arvel Hathcock wrote: >>> This is where we are at present on the NXDOMAIN issue I believe but >>> others might have a different view. >>> >> That's my impression, as well. >> >> What's the path towards settling this? >> > > I propose that the side advocating maintaining the NXDOMAIN check as an > actual algorithmic step agree to remove this from the algorithm > description in favor of placement somewhere else. >
I'd be happy with this if I knew where the "somewhere else" is. If there was a domain existence check somewhere else that we could reference, that's worth discussing. But I know of no such reference. The other question is what the existence check should consist of: check for an NXDOMAIN response or check for MX/A/AAAA which more precisely defines mail domains? -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
