IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt

Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com> Mon, 05 March 2012 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D71021F878B for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 11:24:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.515
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JP3IU0-ZfIZu for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 11:24:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tx2outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (tx2ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com [65.55.88.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EC5E21F8729 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 11:24:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail99-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.244) by TX2EHSOBE005.bigfish.com (10.9.40.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 19:24:25 +0000
Received: from mail99-tx2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail99-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F10DA401A7 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 19:24:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: 0
X-BigFish: VS0(zzzz1202hzzz2fh2a8h668h839h944h)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
Received-SPF: pass (mail99-tx2: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ;
Received: from mail99-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail99-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 1330975462410682_24917; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 19:24:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TX2EHSMHS042.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.240]) by mail99-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 576EE200049 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 19:24:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by TX2EHSMHS042.bigfish.com (10.9.99.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 19:24:21 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC141.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.9.241]) by TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.80.48]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.004; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 19:24:07 +0000
From: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
To: "ima@ietf.org" <ima@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt
Thread-Index: Acz7BQG5U7/efMQ8RT6rO+A+uQNzLg==
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 19:24:06 +0000
Message-ID: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A5B0BDDD5@TK5EX14MBXC141.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.74]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 19:24:27 -0000

>   This draft was triggered by  email software providers when we discussed the eai implementation with them.
>   Any comments are welcome.

Do you have any more information about what problems the email providers were experiencing that this is trying to solve?

IMO, this information doesn't seem very helpful.  I'd still have to query something (DNS in this case), and there'd be a (great) risk of the DNS records becoming out-of-sync with the actual behavior supported by the SMTP server.  Best case, it'd be an early indicator of whether I could tell the user they'd need to provide another address, but I'll figure that out a couple seconds/minutes after they hit "send" anyway :)

If you have more info about what it's solving maybe I'd have a different conclusion.

-Shawn

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email