Reply to Naming MTAs

Kevin Jordan <Kevin.E.Jordan@cdc.com> Tue, 31 January 1995 15:30 UTC

To: MHS Mail <mhsmail@karl.wtk.suresnes.marben.fr>
cc: MHSDS list <mhs-ds@mercury.udev.cdc.com>
Subject: Reply to Naming MTAs
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 31 Jan 95 16:11:07 +0700" <9501311511.AA17636@karl.wtk.suresnes>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 09:30:18 -0600
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Kevin Jordan <Kevin.E.Jordan@cdc.com>
Message-Id: <2f2e578b40d7002@mercury.udev.cdc.com>

> regarding the naming of the MTAs, I wonder if the bilateral
> table(s) are always used during the checking of an incoming
> MTA association or the entry of the remote MTA may be used
> directly if no bilateral aggrements exits. In that case,
> it means for 1984 MTAs named with MTAName, there is a risk
> of collision between two MTAs from differents domains. How can it
> be handled except naming 1984 MTAs with gdi AND mta name.

If an 84 MTA needs to validate all incoming associations, then it will be
necessary for that MTA to register in its bilateral table(s) all of the MTA's
from which it is willing to accept connections.  It should also register
its responder authentication requirements in its own directory entry.

Some MTA's are willing to accept connections from any other MTA's.  These
MTA's do not need to validate incoming associations.  Therefore, they have
no need for bilateral tables, or any well-defined scheme for MTA naming
in the directory.

Naming MTAs MHS Mail
Reply to Naming MTAs Kevin Jordan