Subject: Re: The IETF needs your input about the Spamops document

From: Victor Duchovni <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:57:58 -0400

On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 11:46:49AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:

> A draft specification has been submitted to the IETF for standardization
> as a "Best Current Practices".
> 
> Information about the document is at:
> 
>      <http://mipassoc.org/spamops/>
> 
> The document is in the final stages of a public "Last Call" process,
> during which the IETF's management Steering Group obtains input about
> interest in the document and hears about possible problems with it.
> 

The document is narrow in scope, just clarifies the roles of the MSA,
MTA and MDA. It is hard to imagine any significant controversy over
its contents. Since this is a BCP document, a conservative set of sound
practices is consistent with the goals. This is IMHO a sound document.

My only comment is, that if the intent of the last bullet in section 3
is to reduce backscatter,

    * MDAs SHALL NOT accept mail to recipients for which that MDA has
    no arrangement to perform delivery.

then it should apply not only to the MDA, but more generally to (inbound)
gateways and backup MX hosts. In other words, the definition of an MDA
needs to be extended to include all MX hosts for the recipient's domain,
rather than just the systems performing the actual mailbox delivery.

Likely, instead of redefining MDA from its usual meaning, a more suitable
term should be used for the role of an MTA which is an MX host for the
recipient's domain.

Bcc'd to [email-masked] and [email-masked] (to prevent unintended Reply-All
in their direction).

-- 
	Viktor.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Victor Duchovni <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:56:31 -0400

On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 04:13:10PM -0400, John R Levine wrote:

> That's overreaching, unfortunately.  I would agree with a SHOULD NOT for
> MTAs, but there are often sensible reasons that an MTA doesn't have access
> to the database of valid downstream mailboxes.  As an edge case, but not a
> totally arcane one, there are situations where the delivery is handled by
> a program and until you run the program you can't tell whether the message
> will work or not.
> 

So perhaps a MUST/SHALL not for the MDA and a should not for the MX
MTA, but this hinges of the meaning of "recipients for which that M?A
has no arrangement to perform delivery"... The "arrangement" could be
interpreted to support suitable wildcards when necessary. Perhaps this
comment needs more clarification.

-- 
	Viktor.