IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org> Fri, 28 March 2008 00:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B633A6AC4; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:38:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.936
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.936 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.098, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 yZAfAa-luGkt; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F063A6823; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 303233A6836 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 ITQWd0Jjgi91 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:38:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (drugs.dv.isc.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:214:22ff:fed9:fbdc]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA503A67A9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m2S0cWLB029250; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:38:32 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from marka@drugs.dv.isc.org)
Message-Id: <200803280038.m2S0cWLB029250@drugs.dv.isc.org>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
From: Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:14:40 PDT." <01MSXAA567SQ00007A@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:38:32 +1100
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

> > > In an IETF that believes the potential recursion of URNs and
> > > NAPTR records is reasonable, it is really hard for me to get
> > > excited about that one possible extra lookup.   YMMD, of course.
> 
> I can't get excited about this either.
> 
> > 	Doug's issue, which sparked off this latest debate, would
> > 	be addressed by codifying "MX 0 .".  This would allow hosts
> > 	to say that do not accept email and any email (MAIL FROM)
> > 	claiming to come from such a domain to be dropped in the
> > 	SMTP session.
> 
> OTOH, I think standardizing this convention makes all sorts of sense, but
> not, of course, in 2821bis.

	Why not in 2821bis?  Is 2821bis really that time critical?
 
> 				Ned
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email