IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

SM <sm@resistor.net> Sat, 29 March 2008 16:02 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 6B78E28C3E2; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.572
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.135, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 rm0uAAH1KABU; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E79BE28C2BF; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:02:00 -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 0B5CB3A681B for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:01:59 -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 GIBtwHU-4iZ7 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:01:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87FF03A6C7C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from subman.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.3.Beta0/8.14.3.Beta0) with ESMTP id m2TG1UHT013000 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1206806503; x=1206892903; bh=VjUjyq8Z1vaQi0TPI9Azr8ixcfnGik5sX+9d jQJtok0=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=kH29qLNI8ooQrFRzBZr3221GNo 8VOMqviHFdbG84emqWoVMFxNbdNg5bmn9f6/JE9SJ5N1lXFyJ487kSg895r9eZ1wju3 5pjjjVBXCjr3XSrRJIw6t+YnzCM7R6K8/oaWDU0xDlthbod+Rmwmyb0kunCH0q3OeD/ marEt8ZZiJw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=GxMaPTGWjQXMrBLtnOSn1G6lqOwbXUNiRpDIp6SOXg9bkIfPNBMVwpvwHthwJIcnI l4UG0IfXnaODHonGTA5QPI75H/Aak2ajRmaYg7ylQxl0Fg2J69esQeymPuSY6GERMa/ 1Rc26yZAAaifPLa01/g0MEXqoh3rtvHUq9oaV/o=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20080329083858.02971bb0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:01:20 -0700
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@MIT.EDU>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
In-Reply-To: <20080329143401.GB32033@mit.edu>
References: <47EA8CD8.3010500@network-heretics.com> <alpine.BSF.1.00.0803261436260.36932@simone.iecc.com> <11a101c88f75$96b63bd0$c422b370$@net> <47EAB7E3.4060308@dcrocker.net> <47EACFB4.5010100@cisco.com> <alpine.LRH.1.10.0803290926060.7344@netcore.fi> <9D58802557DBD059763C0316@p3.JCK.COM> <01MSZFLDOT0U000078@mauve.mrochek.com> <47EE499E.5090602@dcrocker.net> <47EE4F2A.8040801@network-heretics.com> <20080329143401.GB32033@mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

At 07:34 29-03-2008, Theodore Tso wrote:
>So I must be missing something, probably because I deleted without
>reading closely enough one of the earlier messages on this thread.
>But please indulge me --- exactly what is the benefit of deprecating
>the "A" fallback, and/or not doing a lookup on the AAAA record if the
>MX record doesn't exist?  Is it the load on the nameservers that
>people would believe would be reduced if we didn't do this?  Is that
>really a problem?  Or is it something else?

The RFC2822bis draft does _not_ depreciate the "A" fallback.

This long thread has been mostly about the fallback to the AAAA 
record if the MX record doesn't exist.   The debate has been about 
whether IPv6 SMTP clients should use the existence of the MX record 
as a test to determine whether the host wishes to receive mail.

Regards,
-sm 

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email