Arvel Hathcock:
> > What do you feel are the technical deficiencies of draft-levine-dkim-adsp?
>
> The biggest problem of course is that it's not a working group document.
>
> If we're to start working now on other documents then Doug Otis is ahead
> of you guys in line since he's had a replacement offering for some time.
> Let's not start down that road.
>
> Let's just get on with having the chairs conduct a straw-poll. The
> question is pathetically simple: Should the next draft of the working
> group document retain the NXDOMAIN check or not? Yes or no. This is
> really easy folks.
>
> If there is insufficient consensus either way then we can either give up
> or work toward some compromise language.
The least ambiguous ways to validate an author domain are a) get an
NXDOMAIN result for the author domain; b) talk to an authoritative
SMTP server for the author domain, which is obviously not practical.
DNS lookup per RFC 2821 section 5 provides only an approximation
of what author domains are valid: not every A/AAAA/whatever record
corresponds to a valid origin of email. So we might just as well
keep it simple and settle for the existing NXDOMAIN check.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
