Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - RMX-like implementation via rDNS (OMX v. DRIP)

"Alan DeKok" <aland@freeradius.org> Mon, 15 September 2003 22:30 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00177 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:30:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19z1rO-0007w1-RK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:30:19 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h8FMUIWe030494 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:30:18 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19z1rO-0007vW-JW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:30:18 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00148 for <asrg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:30:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19z1rL-0007HE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:30:15 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19z1rL-0007H8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:30:15 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19z1r9-0007oT-0E; Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:30:03 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19z1qh-0007nv-T2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:29:35 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00133 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:29:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19z1qe-0007Gq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:29:32 -0400
Received: from [192.139.46.36] (helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19z1qd-0007Gd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:29:32 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 19yvga-00033f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Sep 2003 11:54:44 -0400
From: Alan DeKok <aland@freeradius.org>
To: asrg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - RMX-like implementation via rDNS (OMX v. DRIP)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "15 Sep 2003 01:11:51 CDT." <1063606311.2220.273.camel@plaza.davidnicol.com>
Message-Id: <E19yvga-00033f-00@mail.nitros9.org>
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 11:54:44 -0400

david nicol <davidnicol@pay2send.com> wrote:
> Okay, DRIP
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-brand-drip-01.txt
> is very similar; however instead of 
..
> OMX would have example.com list
> 
> 	omx.m.example.com IN A 192.0.2.10
> 	omx.m.example.com IN A 192.0.2.11

  Which is overkill.  The recipients of a message want to know if a
particular IP is marked as "sending MX".  Forcing the recipient to
wade through tons of unwanted information is inefficient.

  This was my preference:

 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fecyk-dsprotocol-02.txt

  It appears to have expired, though.


  "designated senders" are looked up by reverse IP, which is simple to
configure in DNS, and allows simple wildcarding for the "third-party
relaying" issue.  Further, the response can be a TXT record, with
additional consent information.

  The other benefit is that when the recipient MTA asks "is this IP
permitted to send messages as your domain?", then the response is
"yes", or "no", or "unknown".  This response is much more helpful than
most similar proposals, which involve responding with huge amounts of
information.

  Alan DeKok.


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg