Frankly, I think Dave just enjoys arguing, but I see a point to clarify:
Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John Leslie wrote: > >> One could say, "Anything that eliminates the use of an A RR as a >> substitute registration changes this flexibility." I fat-fingered this, thinking "substitute for registration, but not typing it. I do not believe Implied-MX is a "registration". > What this reformulation misses is that using an A* record means that > there is no incremental registration requirement. ... another of Dave's leaps of faith... > Since the A* record is there for other reasons, it means that being an > email server only requires running the software. In fact, "being" an email server has never required anything beyond running the software. Witness some extremely clue-challenged email administrators we have all had the pleasure of dealing with... > So, what you are calling "substitution" is, in fact, requiring an > email-specific registration step that is not now present. This is a difficult sentence to parse -- not made any easier, alas, by my fat-fingered typing. But, as I read RFC2821, there clearly _is_ an email-specific registration step "present"; but there's also an exception to it. Dave seems to believe that the existence of an exception not only dussolves any "requirement", but also requires us to make additional exceptions whenever a "similar" situation arises. You missed your calling as a Philadelphia lawyer, Dave. ;^) > In fact, it has already been documented over the last few days that > registering MXs can be problematic. ... as well as a number of other instances of the clue-challenged running the railroad... (Note, Dave is not saying these clue-challenged DNS administrators would _actually_ prevent folks from exercising their right to squeeze under the Implied-MX exception already in RFC2821.) >>> So the requirement "How should the intent to receive email for a >>> domain be signaled?" is, in fact, a very basic change to the core >>> Internet mail service model. >> >> Funny, I thought it was a question. > > There is currently no requirement to register intent. So to ask the > question is to look for a change to the model. (Exasperation is creeping in...) I _was_ careful to avoid the "evil R-word" there. An intent _can_ be "signaled" without "registration". > I'm fine with providing an ability to state intent. I'm not fine > with requiring it. We're writing _standards_ here, Dave. Standards are _about_ requiring things. Making ever-more exceptions is something legisators love to do, but it can never simplify the overall process. I have expressed elsewhere my doubts whether folks coding email server software are even going to follow the instructions we put in 2821bis. (I've even expressed doubt whether it's _possible_ to follow the convoluted revision of Section 5 currently in 2821bis-09.) Everybody here is nearing exhaustion. The "about a week" Tony Hansen set for this discussion is drawing to a close. I don't envy his task of calling consensus on this. >> But while we're discussing the subject, I see nothing wrong with >> raising the issue. Perhaps somebody might become convinced that >> active registration is worth encouraging. > > As long as the discussion is decoupled from the *bis round of > discussion, that's dandy. I'd be happy to discuss it separately. > It's easy to get distracted. Indeed!!! -- John Leslie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
