Re: Mail-Transmitter RR

[David Green <green@couchpotato.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, Mathias Koerber wrote:
> I don's see any functionality being destroyed. You will have to make a 
> choice which is more important to you, fast, shortest-hop delivery to
> the nearest recipient MTAs or the protection of your address(es).

Nicely put :) UCE is THE killing factor of using email today. Checking my 
email is a love/hate relationship. At least I have an excellent filter on 
it, but a dozen spams still get through every day. What I don't care about 
is how long it takes me to send one via my isdn (once queued on the 
server, who cares...)

Paul, your proposal is thought out much better than mine. However, I don't 
agree with overloading the MX RR to make this happen. I think that using 
an SRV RR would be a better choice, as this might lead to 
domain-authentication of other services in the future:

    out.smtp.tcp SRV 0 0 smtpsender.asdf.com
    out.http.tcp SRV 0 0 httpproxy.asdf.com

Perhaps even put source port-numbers in there as well...

David Green
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8+j/8Ci6CzkbyeRQRArTUAJ9ncR8kAd5+BQt26cFRPQ25k2b1zACgwH1X
zrVOH6KTmVrZE56QXCIIhUw=
=hUIx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>