Re: [Asrg] seeking comments on new RMX article

[Mike Rubel <[e-mail]>]

DC> What this therefore asserts is that the domain name in a From field
DC> is always tied to a fixed set of originating MTAs.

DC> The presumption is incorrect.

AD> I agree.  But I still like RMX.

AD> What's important for me is that RMX allows the receiving MTA to
AD> trivially discover that the originating domain has consented to send
AD> mail from that MTA.  

JCL> That doesn't work for things like yahoo, mail.com, etc who offer
JCL> POP/IMAP accounts to arbitrary users without an outbound smarthost.

JCL> It specifically doesn't work for me as I aggregate mail from ~8
JCL> addresses here at home, and have my MUA configured to automatically
JCL> generate the correct From: header depending on what folder I'm 
JCL> sending mail from.  Of the eight domains involved, I control only 
JCL> two...

Dear J.C.,

I'm in exactly the same boat here--multiple accounts on different machines 
without outbound smarthosts.

This is not an insurmountable problem, though.  When the administrator of
a system decides to implement RMX records, he will need to provide
SMTP-AUTH or VPN or even a port-25 ssh tunnel.  Many (most?) sites already
do something like this, but it's only fair to factor it into the work 
involved in implementing the RMX approach.  I have added a note to that 
effect at the bottom of the page:

	http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rmx_records/#notes_limitrelays

Even with this cost factored in, however, I still believe that the RMX
solution is far better (smaller effort required to implement and fewer
things broken) than any other solution I have seen to the email forgery
problem.

Best regards,
Mike

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg