IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt> (A NULL MX Resource Record for Domains that Accept No Mail) to Proposed Standard

Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Sun, 20 July 2014 00:15 UTC

Return-Path: <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
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 BDB2D1B2B13 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 17:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 xZxCLQ25vNun for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 17:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FE191B2B07 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 17:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B71FA012F; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 00:15:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1405815333-10914-10913/12/4; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 00:15:33 +0000
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 02:15:32 +0200
User-Agent: Trojita/v0.4.1-243-g4a74770; Qt/4.8.4; X11; Linux; Ubuntu 13.10
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <3cdb430e-56a9-46de-8e7c-a94959d1c21a@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
In-Reply-To: <D1781E44-3404-47C7-8505-F8EEB08FB248@gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwZCU0VsvdaMNHpBwS6V3ndhjJKZ2PN965mfb4YQXM866g@mail.gmail.com> <4B93081ADBB7E866C11CCEEC@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <D1781E44-3404-47C7-8505-F8EEB08FB248@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/nD5gaWe9kKgrX7TTTXvOHeizWwg
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt> (A NULL MX Resource Record for Domains that Accept No Mail) to Proposed Standard
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: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 00:15:39 -0000

I'm sorry about my recent postings on this.

I think the draft as it stands is good. Acceptable. Far from perfect, but 
it describes ten years of standing practice by the two most widely used 
MTAs. Maybe it would be better if it were to describe null MXes as 
nullified or void or something. Maybe it would be better if it were to 
describe why it helps the senders of messages both to and from such 
domains. But these things don't seem to have been much of a problem for 
null MXes in the past decade.

So I think we're spending effort on polishing something which is already 
smooth enough.

Arnt

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status