IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Review of: draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-00

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 21 February 2014 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FD561A056F for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:43:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qTAfz7q2khuB for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:43:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22f.google.com (mail-wg0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AA431A01ED for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:43:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id k14so2793960wgh.2 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:43:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=KHv4XGzJ32viUs+Ofucd5wZ7d57S9Z9+wmH+cnuz0Kw=; b=YQG5CGX9N6pIxPsC4viy2EyQUTM9Za+cmpGSBZb2WaqdlEd6Zn1NNoWdZV8tYDJSTp /3u2A41oUVFCGEfO/HBsGeELA1rQHYK2XETX04Y/pLlSye5TcPwudGcz0Kn9GrZXpz7w 8A0WEygI1gBHLhzs4JcVTDa0dFSy1PPYmFY/23778PHToHbZ1PL1UMR2+jU9syz3999N mRIywa2q/+nHfwy1jP/dZ/GQ8U5Ep+DHxke1IwnBe3GD3wrWm2W9lwnzJzNS8vUIvacI tY20bszNUHyZiQJUOkwGmWhYvW2tEKeDR2qnJ7YvtDX/rVT8+obVyrHfQBm3w2vGgG79 3tWg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.61.210 with SMTP id s18mr8583424wjr.10.1393008229650; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:43:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.180.90.132 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:43:49 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <53076630.2080306@dcrocker.net>
References: <20140215090319.9948.37708.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <530561F9.6070205@dcrocker.net> <CABuGu1rkzxqPSNsDM2VcPOKmg4r4W0Bdy=YhCad2YE47QLR3PQ@mail.gmail.com> <53060AAD.6010601@dcrocker.net> <CAL0qLwbfTWFubxT08VXmewYExHFDT5sHFi6EnGN5BozxF0K5SQ@mail.gmail.com> <53076630.2080306@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:43:49 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZU1KUZt2m+1qpPcTMygfsoCKxMNokEfOY8qu2zJejXoA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b86d586b2990904f2ef00e9"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/9d982vCVaInXvI2B8OXxjRHP6qs
Cc: draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx.all@tools.ietf.org, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Review of: draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-00
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 18:43:57 -0000

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> Except that 'authorized' is the essential point, to distinguish between
> legitimate uses and spoofing, etc. uses.  The word 'legitimate' doesn't
> work well here. So 'authorized' seems the next closes.
>
> There are three essential problems with the original wording. The first
> is that domains don't 'send' mail. Also the word 'send' is frankly
> ambiguous in its own right here. And lastly is that the stricture needs
> to cover keep the domain name out of a number of different fields.
>

My problem is that "SHOULD NOT be authorized for use" is a concept that
exists entirely inside the ADMD creating the content; it points to
something that's not subject to interoperability.  "SHOULD NOT be used", by
contrast, is something that a receiver can evaluate.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email