Douglas Otis wrote: > Agreed. However, ADSP must limit the scope of the practice.
Okay, so apparently we agree that noting say "gbl" addresses as "nomailfqdn" and then reject or even discard them is a bad idea. (I'm not sure if "gbl" is the correct example, please correct me if it's beside your point.) However we're here deep in "receiver policy" territory again, as nice as an X.400 address might be, I don't wish to get it in my inbox, because I'd have no clue how to reply - without reading old Mixer RFCs, which would be cheating, not what an ordinary user does. To take something less exotic, IIRC the drafts don't discuss domain literals at the moment. For an "nxdomain" check this could be addressed by stating "n/a". For John's more elaborated "nomailfqdn" check it could be either solved as "a domain literal is *of course* no FQDN", or by saying "a domain literal *of course* is an A or AAAA". I'd prefer "no FQDN" and let the receiver decide what to do with it, because the technical details of which A or AAAA are plausible public addresses (not 127.0.0.1 etc.) are no topic for ADSP. But maybe it is as simple as two normative references, and after all it still boils down to "let the receiver decide". Frank _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
