IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] Some thoughts on the updated aliasing draft

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Mon, 28 March 2011 02:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D3B73A67A6 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.086
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7HONmKKZahgi for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9255F3A67A4 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 87438 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2011 03:07:30 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 28 Mar 2011 03:07:30 -0000
Message-ID: <4D8FF63E.9000802@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:45:18 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ja; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dnsext@ietf.org
References: <20110327192512.90424.qmail@joyce.lan> <20110328014717.6F0F9D8E7E9@drugs.dv.isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110328014717.6F0F9D8E7E9@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Some thoughts on the updated aliasing draft
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 02:44:02 -0000

Mark Andrews wrote:

> And SMTP had it correct for the second group.  If the SMTP client
> sees the CNAME it re-writes the names in the SMTP exchange to use
> the cannonical host name.  The SMTP server never see the alias.

It does not forbid RFC822 headers contain aliases.

E-mail recipients may change their behavior based on the domain
names of senders in RFC822 headers.

> If you use CNAME and you get different content then you are miss
> using CNAME.  It's not being using to find the cannonical name for
> the host.

Not at all.

						Masataka Ohta

v2.15.0 | Report a Bug | By Email