Douglas Otis wrote:
On Feb 12, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
the SSP draft should mandate publishing MX records whenever an SSP
record is also published.
-1
SSP (or ASP) have no business to "mandate" MX records, that's not
their job. MX records are not req
On Feb 13, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Jim Fenton wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
On Feb 12, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
the SSP draft should mandate publishing MX records whenever an
SSP record is also published.
-1
SSP (or ASP) have no business to "mandate" MX rec
Douglas Otis wrote:
There appears to be confusion regarding the impact of this
requirement. A requirement to publish an MX record when also
publishing SMTP policy does _not_ impact RFC 2821, which had been the
basis for these objections. When the concern is that DKIM Signing
policy records
Jim Fenton wrote:
The MUST only occurs in conjunction with publishing SSP records. This
does not mandate publishing of MX records when SSP is not used.
-1 to this proposal, for the reasons that Wietse and Frank have
mentioned. Furthermore, if the domain publishes an SSP record, the SSP
loo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'd like to add a big -1 to mandating publishing MX, conflating DKIM
and SMTP and so on.
Jon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP Universal 2.6.3
Charset: US-ASCII
wj8DBQFHs1BPsTedWZOD3gYRAsftAKC6GbS3EfXP+8j1dKpe2o8uSwGYsACgjEfs
SE8m
