[Asrg] 6. Proposals - RMX-listing abstractions discussion

david nicol <whatever@davidnicol.com> Mon, 27 October 2003 01:41 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 UAA07620 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:41:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADwNg-0000T3-5l for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:41:18 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9R1fGIv001793 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:41:16 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADwNf-0000Sq-W5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:41:16 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA07603 for <asrg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:41:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADwNd-0004BO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:41:13 -0500
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADwNd-0004BL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:41:13 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADwNR-0000Q6-Mu; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:41:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADwMp-0000Nt-H9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:40:23 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA07578 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:40:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADwMn-0004B4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:40:21 -0500
Received: from ms-smtp-02.rdc-kc.rr.com ([24.94.166.122]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADwMm-0004B0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:40:20 -0500
Received: from CPE-65-26-14-21.kc.rr.com (CPE-65-26-14-21.kc.rr.com [65.26.14.21]) by ms-smtp-02.rdc-kc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h9R1dIhL021568; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 19:39:20 -0600 (CST)
From: david nicol <whatever@davidnicol.com>
To: Alan DeKok <aland@freeradius.org>
Cc: anti-spam research group <asrg@ietf.org>, Adonis El Fakih <adonis@aynacorp.com>
In-Reply-To: <E19yvga-00033f-00@mail.nitros9.org>
References: <E19yvga-00033f-00@mail.nitros9.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1067218757.1070.21.camel@plaza.davidnicol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - RMX-listing abstractions discussion
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: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 19:39:17 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 10:54, Alan DeKok wrote:
> 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.

one UDP packet is not "tons of unwanted information."  We're
looking at at most seven integers and seeing if the one we are
interested in is equal to one of them.


>   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.

The "cram-them-all-into-A-records" method is meant to simplify
DNS administration. It is the simplest possible approach.  The
second approach, suggested in the extended listing draft as 
appropriate when there are many addresses to list, gives at least 32
bits of information in the response. We could mask off 32 bits of
AAAA record and have equivalence.

I understand your preference for more information in the response than
a binary listed/not-listed to imply a preference for defining only
a reverse-style listing and deprecating the arguably simpler
multiple A-records listing style at all, in proposed listing mechanisms.




--
david nicol / A thousand towers rise before me and I cannot climb them all.


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